1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.468 OF 2008 The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., & Ors. ..Applicants V/s. National Flask Industries Ltd, & Ors. ..Respondents ---- Mr.A.Y.Sakhare i/by Harshad Bhadbhade for the applicants. Mr.R.S.Apte with N.R.Bubna for the respondent nos.1 & 2. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 29th July, 2009. PC 1 This is a Revision Application filed by the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No.15 of 2007. The suit has been filed by the present defendants claiming damages against the appellant-bank on the footing that their officers did not perform certain obligations and duties and without performing them, initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, thereby causing them a loss. 2 In this suit the defendants/present appellants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 on the footing that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and that such a suit 2 was barred in view of the provisions contained in Sections 32 & 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order, thereby causing the applicants to file the present Revision. 3 Reliance is placed upon Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) which are in the following terms :- (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action ; (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law It was contended that though the Court has concluded that the plaint disclosed a cause of action, there is no analysis made by the Court as to how the cause of action is disclosed. It is seen that in their application under Order VII Rule 11, it was the contention of the present applicants that the plaint did not disclose the cause of action because the suit was based upon initiation of proceedings under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, by issue of notices. The averments in the plaint are however wider in nature and the cause of action is also said to be based on other grievances and acts of the officers of the bank. Those acts and actions are spelled out in voluminous averments which are found elsewhere in the body of the plaint. The Court has therefore, rightly concluded that the plaint on a bare reading cannot be said “not to disclose a cause of action”. As regards Order VII Rule 11 (d), it is not every bar which causes the rejection of the plaint. That bar must be apparent from the statement in the plaint. Learned Advocate for the applicants contended that it was nowhere stated in the plaint that the action on the part of the officers was not bonafide. In my view, a plaint 3 cannot be rejected on the basis of an absence of a statement in the plaint. 4 My attention was also drawn to Sections 32 & 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In my view, section 34 deals with the jurisdiction of the Court and that issue is separate and distinct from the maintainability of the suit. It is still open for the applicants to raise the issue of jurisdiction and also contend in the Written statement that the actions of the officers were bonafide. If such contentions are raised in the written statement then the trial Court will be obliged to frame and decide such issues. However, that does not mean that there is any fault in the impugned order. In my view, the impugned order does not require any interference. Hence, Revision Application is rejected. 5 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants states that they would like to carry the matter to the higher Court and requests that the stay operating today may be continued for some further time. Ad-interim relief operating today to be continued for a further period of six weeks. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 4