® IN THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Oivision Bend First Appeal No. t53 /2010 :>PELLANT PLAINTIFF :^Smt. Anjana Nagadia, W/o Rajesh Nagadia, aged about 36 years, R/o 119, Poonam Colony, First Floor, Bangre House, Rajnandgaon. Presently residing at 39, Shristi Colony, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) / RESPONDENTS iteFENDENTS Y VERSUS 1. Branch Manager, Dena Bank, 0< •^y^^ ^ ^o^ /^> •*'^"<^^ ^- ^ ^^- ^y ^ /..: Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^. Regional Manager, Dena Bank, Regional OfRce Rukmani Bhawan, NearJairam Complex, Raipur (C.G.) •.^^" ^^" ^ FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVa.PRQCEDURE^IODE,1908, ^(^-< HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS&ARH AT BILASPUR bIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI 41 HON'BLE MR.NAWAL KISHORE A6A<RWAt. JJ. ADpellant Resoondents F.A. No.153/2010 Smt. Anjana Nagadia Vs Branch Manager, Dena Bank & another Presenti Mr. ftavindra Agorwd, Advocate for the appellant. ORbER tOraO (3"d Dweinber, 2010) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard on admission. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the CPC against the order dated 24.11,2010 passed by thc learned Additional Djstricl- Judge, (FTC), Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit Np.38/04 rejecting the plaint as not maintainable. 3. The appellant has filed a civil suit before the court below for declarotion of title over the suit property and permanent injunction. The purpose of getting injunction was that the pJQJntjff/appellant had taken Cash Credit Loan from the respondent bank in the year 2004. Limit was extended up to Rs.9 Lac in the year 2008. For the purpose of security ofthe laon two shops, which were construd-ed on the plot owned by the appelbnt, were pledged. Due to default when the notjce under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the Act, 2002') for depositing the amount within sixty days and for attachment of property for the purpose of sale was issued, the appellant filecl the suit in question for declarotion of title and injund-ion. However, the court- below rejected the plaint of the appellant os not mointainable. /. ^^ 4. Before proceeding furt-her, it is necessary to peruse the provisions of Sections 34 A 35 of the Act, 2002, which are quoted ^erem below:- "34. Civil Court not to hcw®jurisdiction.- No civil court^ shall have jurjsdjction to entertain any suit or proceedlng in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellcrt-e Tribunal is empouvered by or under this Act to deter-mine and no injunction shall be granted by any court- or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993). 35. The provisfons of this Act to override other Iflws.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding dnything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law." 5. Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC also envisages as under:- "(cQ where the suit appears from the statement in the plajnt to be barred by any law. N 6. In the matter of Mardifl Chemicds Ltd. A othcrs Vs. Union of India A others report-ed in ^004) 4 SCC 311 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the prohibition contdns Jn Section 34 ofthe Act, 2002 covers even matters which can be taken cognizance by the Debts ReGovery Tribunal though no measure in that direction has so far been taken under sub-section (4) of Section 13. It is further to be noted that the bar of jurisdiction is in respect of a proceedjng which matter may be taken to the Tribunal. Therefore, any mcrtter in respect of which an ad'ion may be taken even later on, the civil court shall have no jurjsdiction to entertain any proceeding thereof. The bar of civjl court- thus applies to dl such matters which may be taken cognizance of by the Debts Recovery ^•, \.^././ \^f.:.,. ^' •^^' 2^ Tribunat, apart- from those mcrtters in whjch measures have already been taken under sub-section (4) of Sectjon 13. 7. In the instant case, since the propert'y was pledged to the respondent bank and for non-payment of the toan amount the propert'y was attached for the purposes of $ale, provisions of the Act, 2002 will be applicable in the instant which bars such suits and grant of injunction. Therefore, we are of the opinJon that the learned court below has rightly rejected the plaint for want ofjurisdjctjon. 8. In the result, the appeal fails ond is dismissed jn Ijmine. No order osS to costs. Roshan/- Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge