1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.404/2011 SOU KIRAN NAKASKAR ..VS.. SHRI RAMBHAU KHEDKAR AND ORS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, advocate for petitioner Shri Mohta, adv for R-6 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 28, 2011. Heard Shri Sirpurkar for the petitioner and Shri Mohta for the respondent no.6. The trial court did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for joinder of respondent no.6 and 7 as parties to the suit. The petitioner is the plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff against the respondent no. 1 to 5 for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property. The trial court granted a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and restrained the defendants from alienating the suit property. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.3 filed a written statement and after perusing the same the petitioner became aware that the suit property was mortgaged with the respondent no.6- bank. The petitioner therefore filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the respondent no.6 and 7 from 2 creating any further third party interest in the suit property. The petitioner also filed an application for addition of the respondent no.6 and 7 as parties to the suit. The respondent no. 7 is the S.D.O. assisting the respondent no.6 in the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent no.6 against the defendant no.1 for recovery of the loan amount. The application filed by the petitioner for joinder of respondent nos.6 and 7 as party defendants was strongly opposed by the respondent no.6. The trial court, by the impugned order dated 9.9.2010, rejected the application. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties it appears that the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for joinder of respondent no.6 and 7 as party defendants. The trial court rightly held that the respondent nos.6 and 7 were not necessary parties to the suit. The respondent no.6 had to recover the debt in the mortgaged property. The trial court found that the suit against the respondent no.6 and 7 was barred in view of the provisions of section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the respondent no.6 and 7. Even otherwise, it is brought to the notice of the court that the remedy available to the petitioner under section 17 of the Securitisation Act is availed by the petitioner by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The 3 order dated 9.9.2010 appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP