Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur dismissed a civil revision application filed by Dena Bank (defendant no.2) challenging an order of the trial court that rejected the bank's application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint. The suit was filed by Pravin Vitthalrao Dorkhande (plaintiff/non-applicant no.1) seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from evicting him from a flat without due process. The plaintiff claimed to be a tenant under a tenancy agreement dated 10.10.2015 with defendant no.1 (Ganesh Shankarrao Podey) for a period of four years at a monthly rent of Rs.8,000. On 31.07.2017, the Additional Collector passed an order under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, permitting the bank (defendant no.2) to take vacant possession of the same flat. The plaintiff contended that as a tenant, he could not be evicted based on that order. The bank filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC arguing that the suit was barred by Section 17(4A) read with Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, which ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters relating to secured assets. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred. The bank challenged this order in revision. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, reasoning that the bar under Section 17(4A) applies only to matters that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is empowered to determine under the Act. The DRT does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate tenancy disputes, which are within the purview of civil courts. The plaint averments disclosed a claim of tenancy independent of the borrower-defendant no.1, and therefore the suit was not barred. The court dismissed the revision application, affirming that the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Bar of Jurisdiction - The court must examine the plaint averments to determine if the suit is barred by law; if the plaint discloses a cause of action that is not expressly barred, the application for rejection must be dismissed. (Paras 3-5) B) SARFAESI Act - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Section 17(4A) and Section 13(4) - Tenancy Rights - A suit by a tenant claiming independent tenancy rights against a secured creditor is not barred under the SARFAESI Act, as the tenant is not a borrower and the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate tenancy disputes. (Paras 5-7) C) SARFAESI Act - Section 17(4A) - Bar of Jurisdiction - The bar under Section 17(4A) applies only to matters that the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine under the Act; tenancy claims are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DRT. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the civil suit filed by a tenant seeking injunction against eviction is barred by the provisions of Section 17(4A) read with Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, warranting rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the bank's application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The court held that the suit was not barred by the SARFAESI Act and the plaint disclosed a cause of action.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
- Section 17(4A) SARFAESI Act
- Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act
- Jurisdiction of Civil Court
- Rejection of Plaint
- Tenancy Rights
