3 + fb m THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI d\'IL REVISION PETITION N0.242 of 2004 .ludgment Reserved on ; February 7,2005 Date of Decision: April ^ , 2005 # State Bank of India Versus Petitioner Hu'ough: Mr. Narender Pal, Advocate. $ Sh. Mukesh Jain & Anr. ...Respondents Tiiroiigh; Mr. H. S. Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.l. CORAM: »HON'BL.E MR-JUSTICE C.K.MAHAJAN 1. Whetiier reporters of local paper may be allowed to see tiie judgment? 2. To be referred to tiie reporter or not? 3. Whetiier the judgment should be referred in tire Digest? C.E.iVLkHA.TAN, J. The present petition is direscted against tlie order dated 9.2.^004 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi dismissing tiie application of the petitioner under C.R.P. No.242/2004 Page 1 of 6 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified • ^ ^ Order Yll Rule 11 CPC. . The respondent No.l filed a suit for permanent injunction against tlie petitioner and respondent No,2 from dispossessing him from property NO.C-8/29S, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. It was stated by respondent No.l that he purchased the aforesaid property from the previous owner Smt. Pushpa Jain for Rs.l.Od laMi by virtue of general power of attorney, agreement to sell, Will, etc. and that he apprehended dispossession by tiie petifioiier and respondent No.2. The petitioner in its written statenrent alleged that Smt. Pushpa Jain sold tiie -first and second floors with terrace rights of the said property to her husband Shri Shree Chand lain by registered Sale Deed dated 23.10.2001. The said Shri Shree Chand Jain had applied for loan of Rs.8,00,000/- against the sffld property by offering equitable mortgage thereof in favour of the petitioner. He failed to pay the loan amount. The petitioner issued a notice dated 21.7.2003 under Section 13 (2) of llie Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest (Second) Ordinance, 2002. It was tlierefore pleaded that in view of the notice, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 34 of the Securitisation & Reconstiuction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter referred to as "the Acd'). Accordingly, tiie petitioner and-tlie respondent No.2 filed applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. However, the said applications were dismissed by die Civil Judge holding that since the amounts sought to be recovered by the petitioner is less than Rs. 10.00 laMis, tiie bar of Section 34 of C.R.P. No.242/2004 Page 2 of 6 % 7 the A^ct on tiie jurisdiction of the civil court will not apply in this case as the - Ltebt Recovery Tribunal could entertain tlie imtters only where the amount was above Rs. 10.00 laMis. Learned counsel for die petitioner contends that jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal to entertain tire-matters v/here the amount invoL'ed is above Rs. 10.00 lakhs is only in respect of Original Applications for recoveiy under the Recovery of Efebts due to Banks & Finaiidal Institutions Axt, 1993 (for short "the DRT Act")- Wliereas under Section 17 of the Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has been vested mth the powers of an appellate court hearing appeals against enforcement of security interest without the intervention of the court or tribunal under Section 13 of the Act which can be enforced in case of any securit>' interest for securing repayment of any financial asset exceeding Rs.1.00 lakh. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant injuiictioii has been barred under Section 34 of the Act. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.l despite service. Lear-ned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the contentions raised by the petitioner and states that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 1 have heard learned counsel for tire petitioner and respondent No.2 and also perused tlie documents on record. In Hflrshavardhan Chokkani AIR 2002 SC_ 1373, the Supreme Court held as under « Nonetheless, Che High Court is exercising the revisional power wliich in its very nature is a truncated power. Tire width of tlie Page 3 of 6 C.R.P. No.242/2004 powers of the revisional Court cannot be equated with the pov.^rs of the appellate Court. In examining the legality and pmpnetoiy ol the order under challenge, what is required to be seen by the High Court is whether it is in violation of any statutoiy provision or a binding precedent or suffers from misreading ot the evidence oi omission to consider relevant clinching evidence or where the inference dr-awn from the facts proved is such that no leasonau.e person could arrive at or the like. It is only in such situations tliat interference by the High Court in revision in a finaing oi fact will be justified. Mere possibility of a different view is no ground to interfere in exercise of revisional power...." Tlie leai-ned Civil Judge in the impugned order has observed that the bar of Section 34 of the Act extends to matters covered by DRT and Appellate Tribunal empoweiedby the DRT Act. The Securitisation Act would apply to only those cases where the DRT and the Appellate Tribunal derive their powers from the DRT Act. It was also observed that in view of sub section (4) of Section 1 of the DRT Act, where die amount sought to be recovered is less liian Rs. 10.00 lakhs, the bar of Section 34 ot the Secunnsanon Act would not apply. The security interest of die petitioner involved in die present case is to the tune ot Rs.8.00 lakhs whereas die security interest of respondent No.2 is to the tune of Rs.4,90,000/-. Furthermore, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have also not shown whether they were a consortium claiming the amount above Rs.10.00 lakhs. The petitioner and respondent No.2 had filed sepai-ate applications in respect of their sepai-ate claims. Sec.34 of the Securitisation Act provides as under '^0 <nvi1 Court shall have iuris.lctioiLto.enterto^ be granted by any court or Page 4 of 6 C.R.F. No.242^2004 1 m otlier authority, in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under tliis Act or under the Recoveiy of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993)." (Emphasis supplied) Tl.rus Section 34 of the Act puts a bar on Civil Courts in respect of those matters over which Debts Recovety Tribunal or tlie Appellate Tribunal is empowered to deteimine. Section 1/ of the Act provides that any person (including borrower) aggrieved by any of tiie measures referred to in sub section (4) 01 Section 13 taken by the secured creditor may prefer an appeal to ^ Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in^ the matter. The , j Securitisatioii Act is silent about the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal over matters covered under the Secmicisatioii Act. Tiierefore, to determine the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, one has to look into tire provisions of the DRT Act. Section 1(4) of the DRT Act provides that DRT shall have jurisdiction over matters where the amount involved is more than Rs. 10.00 lalths. Admittedly, in the present case, the security interest of the petitioner bank involved is Rs.8.00 lakhs and that of. respondent No.2 is Rs.4,90,000/-, i.e., below Rs. 10.00 laldis. Therefore, tire Debts Recovery Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter and tlie bar- of Section 34 of the Securitisatioii Act would also not apply, in such a case, only the Civil Courts would have juiisdictioii to entertain the matter and hence the injunction granted by the Trial Court is maintainable. Tae scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is resaicted and it is only where there is a jurisdictioiial error or illegality^ or C»H.,P, !No»2423^2004 Page 5 of 6 material iiTegularit3'- in the exercise of jurisdiction tiiaC tills Court can inteifere. It is well settled that in exercise of .iurisdictioiu the finding of fact recorded by the courts beloy/ cannot be reversed. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the petition. Dismissed. April 0 ,2005 OPN. JUDGE C,R.P. No.2.i2/2004 Page 6 of 6