R.S.A. No. 2313 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2313 of 2009 Date of decision:21.07.2009 Satwinder Singh ......Appellant Versus Kulwinder Singh and another ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.K.Singal, Advocate for respondent no. 2. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The appellant challenges the order dated 2.12.2008, passed by Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) Karnal, rejecting the plaint and the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, dismissing his appeal. Counsel for the appellant states that as the courts below have held that the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred, in view of Section 34 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security and Interest Act, 2002, the courts below should have directed the return of the plaint for presentation before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Counsel for respondent no. 2, the contesting respondent states that as the plaint has been rejected under R.S.A. No. 2313 of 2009 2 Order 7 Rule 11(d), the orders passed by the trial court and the first appellate court do not suffer from any error as would require interference. The short question that requires adjudication is :- “Whether in view of the bar to the jurisdiction of a civil court enacted by Section 34 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security and Interest Act, 2002, the learned courts below were required to return or reject the plaint?” Order 7 Rule10(1) empowers a court to return a plaint for presentation to the court in which the suit should have been instituted. Order 7 Rule 11(d) postulates that a plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. It is therefore, apparent and beyond debate that where a court suffers from an inherent lack of jurisdiction, a court would be required to return the plaint after following the procedure prescribed by Order 7 Rule 10 read with Rule 10(A) of the Act. Where however, the suit is barred by any law, a court would be required to follow the procedure for rejection of a plaint as prescribed by Order 7 Rule 11. Consequently, where an enactment prescribes a statutory bar to the very jurisdiction of a civil court, the plaint shall be returned for presentation before the court of competent R.S.A. No. 2313 of 2009 3 jurisdiction. In the present case, Section 34 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security and Interest Act, 2002, enacts a statutory bar to the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain a suit with respect to matters falling within the purview of the aforementioned enactment. As the learned courts below have recorded a finding that the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred, they were statutorily required to follow the procedure prescribed by Order 7 Rule 10 and 10(A) for return of the plaint for being presented before a court of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the order dated 2.12.2008, passed by Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) Karnal, the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, are set aside and the matter is restored to the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Karnal for further proceedings, in accordance with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 and 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 21st July, 2009 SKaushik