M/S.Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Sri Girish

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2025MSA/126/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Section 34 bar on civil court jurisdiction; maintainability of tenant suits against secured creditor; IDBI Bank symbolic possession after NPA; mortgage by deposit of title deeds; Order 43 Rule 1(u) CPC miscellaneous second appeal against appellate remand; plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC; DRT/Appellate Tribunal exclusive forum; tenants to approach appropriate forum for independent rights; Karnataka High Court MSA 2024; RDDBFI Act 1993 referenced in Section 34 text.

What did the court decide?

All eight Miscellaneous Second Appeals allowed; Orders of the First Appellate Court set aside; dismissal of the suits upheld on merits and on the ground of non-maintainability; tenants left free to exhaust any independent right before the appropriate forum in accordance with law; no order as to costs. ¶191

M/S.Idbi Bank Ltd. Vs Sri Girish — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶191

Issue for consideration

Whether the suits filed by the tenant-respondents in O.S. Nos. 1200 to 1207 of 2018 were maintainable before the Civil Court, having regard to Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act which bars civil-court jurisdiction over matters which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. +1 more

¶170

Court's answer

On bare perusal of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, it is crystal clear that the suit before the Trial Court was not at all maintainable, since no civil court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act to determine.

¶184

Ratio / Principle

If the tenants have got any independent right or any other dispute, the forum lies elsewhere and not before the Civil Court.

¶180

Key takeaways

The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court failed to note the mandate under Section 34 of the Act, and remitting the matters to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication of the pending suits resulted in miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Court under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure.ratio¶188
Dismissal of the suits is upheld not only on merits but also on the ground of non-maintainability.ratio¶194
If the tenants have any independent right, they may exhaust their remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law (Order clause (iv)).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (V Srishananda, Judge), oral judgment dated 12.09.2025 in eight connected Miscellaneous Second Appeals (MSA Nos. 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127 and 128 of 2024) filed by M/s. IDBI Bank Ltd. under Order 43 Rule 1(u) CPC against the orders dated 22.08.2023 of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru (First Appellate Court) in R.A. Nos. 180 to 187 of 2021. Background: property owned by Smt. Bhagirathi Bai, who executed a Will in favour of Sri. Sathyanarayana Singh; he borrowed from the appellant-bank, defaulted, and mortgaged the property by deposit of title deeds; on the account becoming an NPA the bank took symbolic possession under the SARFAESI Act, 2002; the tenant-occupants filed suits O.S. Nos. 1200 to 1207 of 2018, which were dismissed (Trial Court having allowed I.A. No. 3 under Sec. 7 Rule 11(d) CPC rejecting the plaint); the First Appellate Court allowed the tenants' appeals, restrained the bank from interfering with their possession and remitted the suits for fresh disposal. Holding: on bare perusal of Section 34 SARFAESI (quoted in full, including reference to the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993), the suits were wholly non-maintainable before the Civil Court; the First Appellate Court's failure to note that mandate and its remand order amounted to miscarriage of justice. Appeals allowed; First Appellate Court's orders set aside; dismissal of the suits upheld on merits and on non-maintainability; tenants may pursue any independent right before the appropriate forum; no costs.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2024 (RO)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2024 (RO) MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2024 (RO) MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2024 (RO) MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 123 OF 2024 (RO) MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2024 (RO) MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2024 (RO) MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2024 (RO) IN MSA No. 126/2024

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

M/S. IDBI BANK LTD., RETAIL RECOVERY, IDBI HOUSE 58, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. GIRISH S/O SMT. MADAMMA AND LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶19

SMT. RANJITHA W/O SRI.GIRISH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 RESIDING IN A PORTION OF DOOR NO. 4705, 2ND CROSS SHIVAJI ROAD, MYSURU - 570 007.

¶20

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA SINGH H/O SMT. LALITHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 218, DEWANS ROAD, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 004

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 43 RULE (1)(u) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2023 PASSED IN RA No.181/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN OS NO.1204/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER SEC.7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

IN MSA NO. 119/2024

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

M/S. IDBI BANK LTD., RETAIL RECOVERY, IDBI HOUSE 58, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (BASANTH CHAKRAVARTHY)

¶29

...APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

SMT. SUMATHI W/O SRI.KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶33

SRI. KRISHNA S/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING IN A PORTION OF DOOR NO. 4705, 2ND CROSS SHIVAJI ROAD, MYSURU - 570 007.

¶34

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA SINGH H/O SMT. LALITHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 218, DEWANS ROAD CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 004

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶39

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.08.2024. PASSED IN RA NO.187/2021 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.06.2020 PASSED ON IA NO. 3 IN OS NO. 1202/2018 ON THE FILE VII ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, ALLOWING IA NO. 3 AND REJECTING THE PLAINT AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE OFF THE SUIT ON MERITS AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES TO PRODUCE THEIR EVIDENCE.

¶40

IN MSA NO. 120/2024

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

M/S IDBI BANK LTD., RETAIL RECOVERY IDBI HOUSE 58, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER BASANT CHAKRABORTY.

¶43

...APPELLANT

¶44

(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶45

AND:

¶46

SMT. MADAMMA W/O LATE NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

SMT. CHICKAMMA

¶50

W/O LATE RAMU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT IN A PORTIION OF DOOR NO.4705, 2ND CROSS, SHIVAJI ROAD, MYSORE CITY - 570 001.

¶51

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA SINGH H/O SMT. LALITHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.218, DEWANS ROAD, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶52

...RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶54

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 43 RULE (1)(u) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2023 PASSED IN RA No.180/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN OS NO.1201/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER SEC.7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶55

IN MSA NO. 122/2024

¶56

BETWEEN:

¶57

IDBI BANK LIMITED RETAIL RECOVERY, IDBI HOUSE 58, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶61

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

¶62

...APPELLANT

¶63

(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA.,ADVOCATE)

¶64

AND:

¶65

SMT TARA W/O SRI.RAMESH RAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶66

SRI. RAMESH RAO H/O SMT. TARA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶67

SRI. RAJESH S/O SRI. RAMESH RAO

¶68

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶69

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING IN A PORTION OF DOOR NO.4705, 2ND CROSS SHIVAJI ROAD, MYSURU - 570 007.

¶70

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA SINGH H/O SMT. LALITHA

¶71

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 218, DEWANS ROAD, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 004.

¶72

...RESPONDENTS

¶73

(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶75

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.185/2021 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 24.06.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN OS NO.1207/2018 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU., ALLOWING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER SEC.7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE OFF THE SUIT ON MERITS AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES TO PRODUCE THEIR EVIDENCE.

¶78

IN MSA NO. 123/2024

¶79

BETWEEN:

¶80

IDBI BANK LTD RETAIL RECOVERY IDBI HOUSE 58, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

¶81

...APPELLANT

¶82

(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶83

AND:

¶84

SRI PRAKASH S/O LATE MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING IN A PORTION OF DOOR NO. 4705, 2ND CROSS, SHIVAJI ROAD, MYSURU - 570 007.

¶85

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA SINGH H/O SMT. LALITHA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

¶89

RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 218, DEWANS ROAD, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 004

¶90

...RESPONDENTS

¶91

(BY SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶92

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 43 RULE (1)(u) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2023 PASSED IN RA No.183/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN OS NO.1205/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER SEC.7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶93

IN MSA NO. 124/2024

¶94

BETWEEN:

¶95

IDBI BANK LTD., RETAIL RECOVERY, IDBI HOUSE 58, MISION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER G. BASANTH CHAKRAVATHY

¶96

...APPELLANT

¶97

(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA.,ADVOCATE)

¶98

AND:

¶99

SRI SHIVANANJA NAYAKA S/O LATE RANGANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶100

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

SMT VIJAYA W/O SHIVANANJA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶103

SRI GANESH S/O SHIVANANJA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶104

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING IN A PORTION OF DOOR NO. 4705, 2ND CROSS SHIVAJI ROAD, MYSURU - 570 007.

¶105

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA SINGH H/O SMT LALITHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 218, DEWANS ROAD, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 004.

¶106

...RESPONDENTS

¶107

(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶108

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.08.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.184/2021 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 24.06.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN OS NO.1206/2018 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU., ALLOWING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER SEC.7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE OFF THE SUIT ON MERITS

¶109

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES TO PRODUCE THEIR EVIDENCE.

¶112

IN MSA NO. 127/2024

¶113

BETWEEN:

¶114

IDBI BANK LTD., RETAIL RECOVERY, IDBI HOUSE 58, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

¶115

...APPELLANT

¶116

(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA.,ADVOCATE)

¶117

AND:

¶118

SMT. PUTTANARASAMMA W/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, DEAD BY LRS (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.07.2025, RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE LRS OF RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶119

SMT. BHAGYA D/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶120

SRI. RAGAVENDRA S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING IN A PORTION OF DOOR NO 4705, 2ND CROSS, SHIVAJI ROAD, MYSORE CITY - 576 001.

¶121

11 -

¶122

NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA SINGH H/O SMT. LALITHA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO 218, DEWANS ROAD, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE - 576 001

¶125

...RESPONDENTS

¶126

(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.07.2025, R2 AND R3 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R1;

¶127

R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶128

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.182/2021 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.07.2020 PASSED ON IA NO. 3 IN OS NO.1203/2018 ON THE FILE VII ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, ALLOWING IA AND REJECTING THE PLAINT AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE OFF THE SUIT ON MERITS AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES TO PRODUCE THEIR EVIDENCE.

¶129

IN MSA NO. 128/2024

¶130

BETWEEN:

¶131

IDBI BANK LTD., RETAIL RECOVERY, IDBI HOUSE, 58, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶132

NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶133

12 -

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

¶136

G. BASANTH CHAKRAVARTHY.

¶137

...APPELLANT

¶138

(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE)

¶139

AND:

¶140

SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR @ MANJUNATH S/O SRI.SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING IN A PORTION OF DOOR NO 4705, 2ND CROSS, SHIVAJI ROAD, MYSURU - 570 007.

¶141

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA SINGH H/O SMT. LALITHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 218, DEWANS ROAD CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 004

¶142

...RESPONDENTS

¶143

(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶144

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.08.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.186/2021 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 24.06.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN OS NO.1200/2018 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL I CIVIL

¶145

NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶146

HC-KAR

¶147

JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU., ALLOWING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER SEC.7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE OFF THE SUIT ON MERITS AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES TO PRODUCE THEIR EVIDENCE.

¶148

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶149

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶150

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶151

Heard Sri. T.P. Muthanna, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. P. Nataraju, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri. Abhinav R., learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶152

These appeals arise out of the Order passed by

¶153

the First Appellate Court in regular appeals whereby the appeal filed by the respondents came to be allowed reversing the dismissal of the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties' name, suit numbers, Regular

¶154

NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS

¶155

14 -

¶156

Appeal numbers and Miscellaneous Second Appeal

¶157

numbers are tabulated hereunder:

¶158

SL.No	PARTY NAME	O.S. NO.	R.A. NO.	MSA NO.
01.	Sri. Girish & another	1204/2018	181/2021	126/2024
02.	Smt. Sumathi & another	1202/2018	187/2021	119/2024
03.	Smt.Madamma & another	1201/2018	180/2021	120/2024
04.	Smt. Tara & others	1207/2018	185/2021	122/2024
05.	Sri. Prakash	1205/2018	183/2021	123/2024
06.	Sri. Shivananja Nayaka & others	1206/2018	184/2021	124/2024
07.	Smt. Putta Narasamma & others	1203/2018	182/2021	127/2024
08.	Hemanth Kumar @ Manjunath	1200/2018	186/2021	128/2024

¶159

In all these matters, respondents are the tenants under Smt. Bhagirathi Bai. Smt. Bhagirathi Bai executed a Will in favour of Sri. Sathyanarayana Singh. Said Sri. Sathyanarayana Singh had borrowed the money from the appellant/bank and became a defaulter. Property

¶160

NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS

¶161

15 -

¶162

which is the subject matter of these appeals was

¶163

mortgaged to the Bank by way of deposit of title deeds.

¶164

When Sri. Sathyanarayana Singh became a defaulter and his account became non performing asset, appellant/bank exercised their power under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the short) and took symbolic possession of the suit property. Bank wants to realise the money by sale of the mortgaged property.

¶165

It is at that juncture, the respondents who are the tenants have filed aforesaid suits. Suits on contest came to be dismissed.

¶166

However, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court allowed the appeals filed by the tenants and whereby the appellant/bank was restrained from interfering with the possession of the tenants and matters

¶167

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS

¶168

were remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

¶169

The said Order of remand is called in question by the appellant/bank.

¶170

Learned counsel Sri. T.P. Muthanna, learned counsel for the appellants in all these matters reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that as per Section 34 of the Act, Civil Court has no jurisdiction and therefore very entertaining the suit was incorrect and anyway the Order of the First Appellate Court remitting the matter to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication in the pending suits is thus illegal and sought for allowing the appeals.

¶171

Per contra, Sri. P. Nataraju supports the Judgment of the First Appellate Court and contend that tenants have got independent right and property that has been mortgaged is not the property occupied by the

¶172

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS

¶173

tenants and under such circumstances, the suit is perfectly maintainable and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶174

Having heard the arguments of parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶175

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that property which is the subject matter of the suit is owned by Smt Bhagirathi Bai. Later on she had executed a Will in favour of Sri. Sathyanarayana Singh who in turn mortgaged the suit property in favour of the appellant/bank and obtained the loan.

¶176

Admittedly, said Sri. Sathyanarayana Singh became defaulter and his account with the appellant/bank has been classified as non performing asset whereby the appellant/bank had the right to proceed against the security that is the subject matter of the suit property under the Act.

¶177

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶178

HC-KAR

¶179

If the tenants have got any independent right

¶180

or any other dispute, forum lies elsewhere and not the Civil Court.

¶181

In this regard, it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act which reads as under:

¶182

34. Civil court not to have jurisdiction.—No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993).

¶183

On bare perusal of the above provision, it is

¶184

crystal clear that the suit before the Trial Court was not at all maintainable.

¶185

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:38045 MSA No. 126 of 2024 C/W MSA No. 119 of 2024 MSA No. 120 of 2024 AND 5 OTHERS

¶186

HC-KAR

¶187

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court failed

¶188

to note the mandate under Section 34 of the Act and remitting the matter to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication of pending suits has thus resulted in miscarriage of justice needs interference by this Court by exercising the power vested in this Court under order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶189