FAO 12/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B. LOKUR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH (Madan B. Lokur, CJ) This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.4.2011 passed in Misce llaneous (J) Case No.65 of 2010 in Title Suit No.63 of 2010 pending before the C ivil Judge No.1 at Guwahati. The appellant had applied for an injunction on the ground that the prese nt Respondents No.1 and 2 had fraudulently transferred his property in their nam es and had obtained a loan from Respondent No.3 State Bank of India after mortga ging the property. It is submitted that Respondents No.1 and 2 had not paid the due install ments to the State Bank of India and as a result the Bank moved a recovery petit ion before the Debts Recovery Tribunal being O.A. No.97 of 2009. It is stated th at the matter is still pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The appellant had independently filed a suit against Respondents No.1 an d 2 and in that suit, he moved an injunction application to restrain Respondents No.1 and 2 from alienating the suit property by way of sale or any other mode a nd from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant over the suit property. The learned Trial Court declined to entertain the miscellaneous applicat ion in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribuna l in which the appellant is also a party. The learned Trial Judge also declined to entertain the application in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Secu ritization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security I nterest Act, 2002. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before us. In our view, without going into the merit of the case, since the appella nt is a party before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the grievance raised herein ca n be raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and appropriate relief prayed for . We ought not to encourage multiplicity of proceedings when there is already a case pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in which the appellant is a par ty. Under the circumstances, we leave it open to the appellant to raise the issues now raised before us in the Debts Recovery Tribunal. We make it clear that any observation made by the learned Civil Judge wi ll not influence the Tribunal in exercising its jurisdiction. It is quite clear that any observation made by the learned Trial Judge was only for the purpose of deciding the miscellaneous application. This appeal stands disposed of with liberty to the appellant to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.