Civil Revision No.6595 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6595 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.08.2010 GIC Housing Finance Limited and another ....Petitioners Versus Preet Inder Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 5.6.2009, passed by the learned trial Court, vide which the application moved by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands dismissed. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners, their servants, agents, mukhtiars, etc. on their behalf, from recovering any amount from the plaintiff, by coercive method, illegal means or with the help of police, without following the due process and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the house in question illegally, forcibly or with the help of police, without due process of law or in any other manner, whatsoever. It is not in dispute, that the plaintiff/respondent was advanced a loan against the mortgage of the property. On the failure of the plaintiff/respondent, to pay the instalments and other penalties, notice Civil Revision No.6595 of 2009 (O&M) -2- under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was served. The plaintiff/respondent, without challenging the notice, filed the suit for injunction as noted above. On notice, the defendant/petitioners appeared in the Court and moved an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the suit was barred under the Act. Sections 13(2), 13(4) and 32 of the Act bar a civil suit. In absence of challenge to the notice, the suit itself was not maintainable, as no injunction could be granted, restraining the party from prosecuting a remedy available under a statute. This Court in State Bank of Patiala Vs. Karanvir, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 198, laid down, that the suit to challenge the action taken under the Act is barred. Learned counsel for the petitioners states at bar, that the petitioners would effect the recovery by due process of law, under the Act and would not use any coercive method. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent is ordered to be dismissed as barred under the Act. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 26, 2010 R.S.