1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1481/2008 Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule Appellant Vs. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd. Respondent Mr.Rajesh Datar and Pankaj Das for the appellant Mr.Amit Borkar for the respondent Coram : J.H.Bhatia ,J. Date : 13th August,2008 P.C. 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant before this Court was the plaintiff in Special C.S.No.226/2007 filed before the Civil Judge,S.D.Kolhapur seeking declaration that the notice dated 5.7.2007 issued u/s 13(2) of Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (Securitisation Act in brief ) by the respondent /defendant is invalid . According to the plaintiff he has secured some loan and according to him the loan has been repaid. However, according to the respondent the amount is not fully repaid and the respondent issued notice u/s 13 (2) of Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 against certain immovable property ,which according to the plaintiff is owned by his wife and not the plaintiff. According to him the said property is not secured asset 2 within the meaning of Securitisation Act, and therefore, notice could not be issued in respect of that property . 2] The defendant/respondent contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of section 34 of Securitisation Act,. 3] A preliminary issue was framed and after hearing the parties learned II Jt.Civil Judge,S.D.Kolhapur held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Being aggrieved by the same the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 4] At the outset the learned counsel for both the parties conceded that this question has been squarely covered firstly in the judgment of this court in Civil Revision Application no.148/2004 The Yuth Development Co-operative Bank Ltd.Vs.Balsaheb Salokhe and ors. Decided on 26th March ,2008 and then by two Division Bench Authorities of this High Court in Khaja Industries Vs.State of Mahrashtra ,2007 ,712 and Writ Petition no.4056/2007 Rama Steel Industries & Ors.Vs.Union of India and anr.2008 (1) Bom.C.R.271. In view of the consistent view taken by this High Court in the above referred cases it is difficult to find that there was any fault in view taken by the Trial Court. Therefore, I find no substance to admit the appeal .In the result the appeal stands dismissed summarily. 3 5] At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant makes a statement that both the judgments delivered by the two Division Benches of this Court referred above have been challenged before the Supreme Court . Notice is issued and interim relief is granted to the concerned parties . The learned counsel also intends to approach the Supreme Court . 6] Therefore, the respondent shall not take any action u/s 13 (4) of Securitisation Act against the property as per notice issued u/s 13(2) of Securitisation Act for a period of six weeks from this date. (J.H.Bhatia,J.)