IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1213 of 2011 Mahendra Singh Son of Sri Gyan Singh. … Petitioner. Versus Uttaranchal Gramin Bank and two others. … Respondents. Mr. S.S.Chauhan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Date June 29, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.1-Bank and perused the record including the impugned order. By means of this writ petition, by means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3-6-2011 passed by the District Judge Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 261 of 2011, Mahendra Singh Vs. Uttaranchal Grimin Bank and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned District Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction and has given a finding on merit that the petitioner has to approach to the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the Act). A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge shows that the District Judge after hearing on the application moved under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil) to hear the appeal urgently during the summer vacations has observed that the Civil Judge has decided the application (paper no. 6-C2) on merits and has held that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Act and in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others [(2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 311 = AIR, 2004, Supreme Court, Page 2371] the borrower has statutory remedy to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. The learned District 2 Judge has also observed that if fraud or any absurdity is there, then the civil court has limited jurisdiction. It is further observed that the suit was filed for mandatory injunction and no declaration was sought, therefore, in view of Section 17 of the Act, the petitioner has a right to file appeal against the notice issued to him on 6-12- 2010 and thereafter the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun has rejected the application of the petitioner (6-C2) for temporary injunction, therefore, the District Judge has taken a view on the basis of observation referred above that case of urgency is not made out and accordingly the application under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil) has been rejected by the impugned order. In my view the learned District Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction by commenting on the merits of temporary injunction application (paper no. 6-C2). The District Judge has not recorded any finding whether the affidavit filed by the petitioner stating the grounds of urgency makes out a case of urgency to hear the appeal during summer vacations or not, rather the application under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil) has been rejected on extraneous grounds mentioned above. For the reasons and discussion above, the impugned order dated 3-6-2011 passed by the District Judge suffers from jurisdictional error and has to be set aside outright. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3-6-2011 passed by the District Judge Dehradun is set aside. If the appeal is filed, the District Judge shall decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits after considering all the grounds raised in the appeal after hearing both the parties and the same shall be decided expeditiously as far as possible. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP