^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0.80 OF 2007 APPLICANT NON- APPLICANTS Cent Bank, Through Branch Manager, Surya Bhawan, Near Laxmi Talkies, Juna. BJIaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Raju Gurung, S/o Shri Ganga Bahadur Gurung, R/o Shailendra Nagar, O.N. C-51, -Ameri Road, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G) 2. Samuel James. Builder/Colontzer, Near Masih Bhojnalaya, Jarhabhatta, Mandir Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Naib TahsiJdar, Tahsil Office Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Aawaashin Grih Nirman Samiti A Co- operative Society R^gistered UndOr the C.G. Co-operative Societies Act. 1960, Mandir Chowk, Jarhabhatta, Bilaspur REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURr (Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present Shri Mateen Siddiqui, counsel for the applicsant. Shri Rajw Shrivastawi, counsel atong witti Shri Malay Shrivastava, counsel for non-applicant No.1 . ORALORDER (Passed on 7 day of January, 2010) The instant revision is directed against the order dated 03-03- 2007 passed by Seventh Civil Judge, Class-11, Bilaspur in CMI Suit No.7-A/2007 whereby and whereunder the appljcation preferred by the applicant under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Fjnancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') read with Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been drsmissed by the trial Court. 2. The facts briefly stated as under: One Kanhaiya Singh Chouhan had taken loan from the applicant and mortgaged his property bearing Khasra No.346/5, Plot No.51, area 1500 Sq.ft. with the applicant and constructed a house u ^ thereupon. When the loan was not paid, the applicant issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to said Kanhaiya Singh Chouhan for discharge of his liabilities within a perlod of 60 days. When the said loan was not paid, then taking recourse of sub section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, the applicant took over symbotic possession of the heuse constructed over the above land. By flling a civil suit, the said action of the applicant was challenged by non-applicant No.1, Raju Gurung. The applicant after appearing in the said suit, filed an objection under Order 7 Rule 11 ofthe C.P.C. that tn terms of Section 17/34 that the said act, the sujt filed is not maintainable, the plaintiff/non-appliGant has its remedy in filing the appeal in terrns of Sectjon 17 ofthe Act. The said appjjcation has been dismissed bythe Trial Court on the premise that there exlsts dispute with regard to identityoftheland. 3. Shri Mateen Siddiqui, leamed counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that whatever may Uie dispute, the same has to be decided by the appellate authority under Section 17 of ttie Act and the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the leamed frial Court erred in dismissing their application. 4. Per contra, Shri Rajiv Shrivastava. tearned counsel appearir^ for respondent No.1 supported Uie ordef impugned and submits that the learned trial Court has passed the order on sound reasor^, which deserves to be upheld. 5. ! have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per Section 17(1) of the Act, any person (Including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub- section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secuped oreditor or his authorized ofRcer under this Chapter. (may make an appllcation along with such fee, as may be prescribed) to the Debte Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures have been taken. Section 34 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court. A bare reading of Section 17(1) would reveal that against the order passed by the applicant under Section 13(4) of the Act, the remedy available to any person including borrower is to file the appeal in accordance wlth the aforesaid provision. i^ ^ Kw 7. The scope of the provjsion is not limited to the borrower, it applies to any person jncluding borrower, if aggrieved by the order passed under Section 13(4) of the Act, may prefer the appeal und^r the said provision. 8. A Co-joint reading of Section 17 with Section 34 of the Act would reveal that ttie only remedy of any pereon again^; the order is to fite an appeal and Civij Suit is expressly barred. 9. In view of the above, there is no jota of doubt that the CMI Suit filed by the respondent is barred under Section 34 of the Act and the order of the trial Court suffers from grave |urisdictional illegaJity which deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed and the suit filed by non- applicant No.1 being not maintainable is rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. being barred under Section 34 of the Act. However, non-applicant No. 1 is free to avail his remedy in accordance with law. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Mr