IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 C.R.P.No. 729 of 2008() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2008 IN IA 1941/2008 IN OS.151/2007 OF PRL.M.C., KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ COUNTER PETITIONERS 1 AND 2/DEFENDANTS 1&2 : 1. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE & TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. K.V. JOSEPH, SPECIAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE AND TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI,SC,KOTTAYAM DIST.COOP.BAN RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONERS 3 & 4/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 3&4: 1. CHITHRABHANU, THUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM.P.O, NATTAKOM, KOTTAYAM. 2. PRADEEP.T.C, ASARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT THUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.R.P.No. 729/2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO.2205 OF 2008 IN C.R.P. NO.729 OF 2008 DISMISSED SD/ 25/11/2008 K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- C.R.P. No. 729 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The first defendant-Bank and second defendant-Special Officer, Kottayam District Co-operative Bank empowered as special officer under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in O.S. No.151 of 2007, a suit instituted by the first respondent, has preferred this revision assailing the order passed by the Munsiff on the question of jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit on additional issue No.1 to the effect that the suit is maintainable. Proceedings were initiated by the second petitioner on behalf of the first petitioner bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against the property offered as security for the loan availed of by the second respondent/3rd defendant, who is the son of the first respondent/plaintiff. Thereupon first respondent instituted O.S. No. 151 of 2007 aforesaid before the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction contenting that the property belonging to him had been hypothecated by his son-second respondent making use of the document that was in his possession in relation to the property belonging to the first respondent, C.R.P. No. 729/ 2008 2 forging signature of the first respondent. It is not in dispute that in relation to any action taken under Section 13(4) of the said act, by reason of Section 34 of the Act civil court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any suit and cannot grant any injunction in the suit. O.S. No. 151 of 2007 is a suit wherein the prayer is only for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. It is contended by the counsel for the respondent that he wants to amend the plaint seeking for a decree declaring that property had not been hypothecated by him to the first petitioner-Bank and that the second respondent was forging his signature and fraudulently creating a hypothecation in favour of the first petitioner bank. He may move for amendment, if so advised. However as matters stand, the relief sought is only for an injunction and suit for injunction restraining proceedings under the Securitisation Act aforesaid will not be maintainable in view of Section 34 of the Act. The finding to the contrary entered into by the Munisff impugned in this C.R.P is unsustainable and it is set aside allowing this revision. K.P. BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE scm