THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4448 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment, dated 08.07.2008, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, in C.M.A.No.2 of 2007, confirming the order and decree, dated 13.03.2007, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, in I.A.No.25 of 2006 in O.S.No.15 of 2006. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in the suit. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit. The suit-O.S.No.15 of 2006 was filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from treating the suit schedule property as equitable mortgage of the Bank as guarantor and restraining from bringing the same for sale by public auction. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application I.A.No.25 of 2006 before the trial Court, seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents-bank from putting the immovable property, which is the house property in which she is allegedly residing, to sale by public auction till disposal of the said suit. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has only life interest but not exclusive right over the property and that she has not entered into any transaction for mortgaging or any other transaction regarding the house property, which is in dispute. The trial Court, following the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, to which DSRV, J is a party, in Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ongole v. C.Lathangi[1], wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of the civil Court to grant injunction was explicitly barred under Section 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) and the only remedy available to the aggrieved person is by way of an appeal, as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act, had dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that in the instant case proceedings are initiated under the Act. Both the Courts below, while passing the judgments, have followed the statutory position as well as the position rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision cited supra. From the above legal position, it is clear that the only course open to the petitioner is to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act in order to work out the remedies. I see no illegality or infirmity or irregularity in the judgments passed by both the Courts below and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly in view of the nature of the pleadings averred by the petitioner that she is not a party to any of the proceedings with regard to the suit schedule property, I deem it appropriate to give reasonable time to the petitioner to file an appeal under the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal under the Act before the competent authority within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents-bank shall not proceed against the suit schedule property under the provisions of this Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 16th July, 2010 Note: Issue CC by 19.07.2010. B/o dr [1] 2006 (1) ALD 798 (DB)