IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A. O. No. 80 of 2008 1. Hanee Sandhu S/o Shri balwant Singh Sandhu R/o Nanksar Colony, Raipur Road, Dehradun. 2. Jagbeer Singh Man S/o Late Shri Lal Singh Man, R/o 27, Tula Place, Haridwar Road, Dehradun. – Petitioners Versus 1. Roop Kishore Gupta S/o late Shri Laxmi Chand Gupta. R/o 76/7, Saket Colony, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Laxmi Datt. 2. Sathish Agarwal S/o Shri Daodayal, 3. Smt. Usha Agarwal lW/o Shjri Satish Agarwal, Mathura Datt. Dehradun. 4. Canara Bank through its Branch Manager. Canara Bank, Branch at Ghantaghar, Dehradun. – Respondents Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Mr. Lalit Sharma & Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. Sidharth Sah, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Aggrieved by the order dated 13th February, 2008, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dehradun in Civil Suit No. 54 of 2007, whereby the learned court below has declined to grant interim injunction in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court in the present appeal. In the civil suit and temporary injunction application filed by the petitioners, the main relief claimed was relating to and arising out of the action initiated by respondent no.4 under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. Mr. Sidharth Sah, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 first and foremost, by referring to Section 34 has submitted that indeed no Civil Court has any jurisdiction to grant any injunction with respect to any action taken or to be taken by a secured creditor under the aforesaid 2002 Act. 3. The respondents no. 2 and 3 are the loanees of respondent no. 4 Bank, who by way of security have executed a mortgage deed in favour of respondent no. 4. The contention of the petitioners/plaintiffs in trial court as well as before this Court is that the mortgaged property was purchased by the petitioners from its rightful owner, namely, respondent no. 1. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 has shown to me the copy of the sale deed executed on 13th October, 2003 by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no.2, whereby the property in question was sold by respondent no.1 to respondent No. 2 and only after the execution of this sale deed had respondent no. 2 and 3 executed the mortgage deed in favour of respondent no. 4. Bank. On the own showing of the petitioners/plaintiffs respondent no. 1 had executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioners on 29th June, 2005 that is much after the execution of sale deed by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 2 and therefore the execution of Mortgage Deed. 4. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent no. 1 has denied about having executed any sale deed on 13th October, 2003 in favour of respondent no. 4 Bank. 5. Whether sale deed was or was not executed by respondent no. 1 on 13th October, 2003 in favour of respondent no. 2 and what was the effect of the mortgage deed executed by respondents no.2 and 3 in favour of respondent no. 4 are indeed issues, which would fall for determination and consideration by the learned trial court. Similarly the trial court will also determine and consider about the effect as well as validity etc. of any sale deed executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of the petitioners in the year 2005 after he had executed, if at all, the sale deed in the year 2003 in favour of respondent no. 2. As far as the grant of temporary injunction, however, is concerned, in the facts and circumstances as mentioned above and applying the embargo created by Section 34 of 2002 Act, I have no doubt in my mind that the learned court below was justified in declining to issue any temporary injunction. 6. No interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed. (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 14.03.2008 JPT