vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.512 OF 2006 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.512 OF 2006 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.512 OF 2006 Shri Narayan Baburao Burudkar & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. Shri Tulajaram Baburao Burudkar & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.U. Dhakephlakar for Appellants Mr.S.C. Mangle for Respondent Nos.44 and 45 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JULY 24, 2008 JULY 24, 2008 JULY 24, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The order challenged in this Appeal is passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur on 15.6.2006. The Court has held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Court therefore has returned the plaint to the plaintiff for filing the same before the competent authority. The learned Judge has separated the trial with respect to Defendant No.45 under Order 1 Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that this is a civil dispute between the parties and therefore, the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and not the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Securitisation Act. He places reliance on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Krishna v. Kedarnath & Ors., AIR 2006 KARNATAKA 21 AIR 2006 KARNATAKA 21 AIR 2006 KARNATAKA 21 in support of his submission. 3. The reliefs sought in the appeal are: (i) that : 2 : the transactions between defendant Nos.1,3,4,13 and 14 in respect of the plaintiffs share of No.7/30 are not binding on the plaintiff and (ii) for partition of the property bearing Survey No.355. 4. It is obvious that the first prayer cannot be granted by the Civil Court in view of the provisions of the Securitisation Act. Under section 17, the plaintiff has the right to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal in order to redress his grievance. 5. However, as regards the partition of the suit property, the civil Court does have jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Krishna’s case (supra). In my view, therefore, the prayer sought in the plaint regarding the issue as to whether the transactions between defendant Nos.1 to 4 and Respondent Nos.13 and 14 are binding on the plaintiff cannot be decided by the civil Court and, therefore, the plaint has rightly been returned in respect of that issue. However, in respect of the other prayers, there is no doubt that the civil Court has jurisdiction. 6. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.