1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 535 OF 2008 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 611 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 535 OF 2008 __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, apperances, Court' s orders or Court's or Judge's orders directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Chetan Patil, i/by.Mr.S.S.Patwardhan, adv.for appellant. Mr.Bhupesh V.Samant, adv.for respondent no.1. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota J. Dated : 5 th September, 2008. P.C. : 1. By the order dated 22nd April, 2008 of Civil Judge Junior Division, Sangli returning the plaint to the appellant for presentation to the proper court on the ground that the civil court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the 2 suit in view of Section 34 of the Secrutisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The respondent Bank has proceeded against the appellant as per Debt Secrutisation Act and issued notices as per the provisions of Section 13(2), 13 (3), 13(3)(f) etc. It is contended by the appellant that the respondent Bank is not a secured creditor and therefore cannot resort to the Debt Secrutisation Act, 2002. The respondent has filed an additional affidavit in the present proceedings enumerating the documents executed by the appellant at the time of sanction of loan to him. From the documents, it is obvious that the respondent bank is a secured creditor and hence the trial court has correctly held that the civil court has no jurisdiction in view Section 34 of Secrutisation Act. 2. Mr.Samant, learned counsel for 3 the respondent, submits that the present appeal is nothing but an attempt on the part of the appellant to delay the execution proceedings. He refers to the reply dated 9th June, 2006 sent by the appellant to the notice of the authorised officer promising that he would repay the loan within a period of 20 days from that date and in the event of failure to do so would vacate the premises mortgaged to the bank. 3. On both the above counts, the Appeal from Order is dismissed in limine. 4. With the dismissal of the Appeal from order, the Civil Application does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [JUDGE]