Learned counsel fbr the petitioner has relied upon the vs Sa(u.ritisdtion Act to determine. The expression'in rcspect

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. ASHISH SAMAT, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER I ItON'I}LE SII.I JUS'I'ICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHEI"[Y CIVIL RITVISION PE I Il'lON No.60i o1'1014 ORDER: 'l'his C'ivil Rcvision Petition. un(lcr Articlc 227 ol' the Constitution of h.rdia, is liled against the orclcr dated 12.11.1023 in

1.A.No.626 ol 2018 in O.S.No. 1509 ol' 2017, passed by the VI Aclditional District Juclge, Rrnga ileddl District at Kukatpally (hclcinalter re i'erred to rrs the '[)istrict CoLrrt')

2. Heard Sn'rt Kalpar-ra Lkbote, lcarncd counsel 1br the petitioncr, Sri M.V. Pratap Kr-rnrar, learned counscl lirl respondent t.\o. I . and Sri Ashish Sanrat-. lealrrcd courrscl lbl rcsponclent No.2.

3. 'Ihe bricf t-acts ol'the casu as nalratccl in the prescnt Civil I{cv ision Petition are that:

3.1 Rcspondent No.2 oflbrecl to sell thc rcsicle'ntial Plot in Sy.Nos.175 to 182, admeasuling 300 scllrare i,ards, at Cybcr Meaclows Socicty, Kondapur Village, Se'rilinganrpllll, N{andat, Ran_ea Reddy District, (hcrcinalier relcrlcd to as thc 'schecluled propcfty') to respondent No.l; that respoudenl No. I aftcr being satist-red with the title of rcspondent No.2 agreed to purchase the l said Plot; that accordirrgly, respondent No.2 executed an agreemcnt ol' sale datr-'cl t2.03.2009 in lavour ol' respondent No. l. r.vhercin rcspondent No.2 acknowledged receipt ol ILs.70,00.000i- (Rupe'cs Scr,enty lrrkhs onll') fi'om respondent No.ll thirt o\\'ing rtr nrisplacerlcnt ol clocur.nents and other rclls()ns cited lrr rc.spondenl \o. 2, the sale deed was llot exccuted. norlethelcss. possessiorr rvas delivered to respondent No. l, rvho has since bccn in possessi,rn and has bccn paying uraintenance and tclephone chrrges.

3.2 Whil,: so, in the first week of Novcmber,20I7, respondent \o. I discovered that respoudent No. r had. ir-r 20 I0. subsequent to the aa.reelncnt ol sale, ct'cated a nlortgage o\.cr thc scheduled fropefty in f-avour of the petitioner-bank and depositcd thc oliginal sale decd as security to the loan availed b1 him l.l Consetluently, respondent No.l flled OS.No. I 509 of 20 l7 scrkir-rg the relief of specific perfomrance of agt'eenrenl ol salc [r1' dirccting lespondent No.2 to execttte a registcred sale decd llt lavour of rcspondent No.1; and for mandatoly inlunction directing the petitioncr herein to deliver the original sale deed dated -r-- I,NI.J C.R.P No.60) o/ 2021 1 i.10.2006 and the rectillcation dced dated 27.11.2006; and also for perrnanent injunction restraining the pctitioncr ancl respondent \o.l flonr interl-ering ri ith his posscssion o1' thc scl-rcduled propcrl),.

1.4 During the pendency of said suit, thc petitioner'-bank lrled I.A.No. 62(r of 20 18 under Order VII Rulc t I CPC, stating that tlre avcnnents in the plaint to be baseless. It u,as liuther averred that respondent No.2 being the absolute and solc ou,ncr ol the schedulcd propefiy, approachcd the petitioncr- bank. availed loan and clcated charge ovcr the scliedule property as scculily to thc loan; that thereafter, as thc said loan account has becornc NPA, the pctitioner-bank has initiated lneasurcs under the Sccuritisation and ftLrc()nstrLrct ion of lrinancial Assets and Lnlbrcenlcnt o1- Secu|itr Interest Act, 2002 (tbr brevity 'the SARFAUSI Act'); and lespundent No.2 has llled SA.No.77,1 ol- 20 ll belbre I)cbts [{ecovcr}' -l'ribunal, Hl,dcrabad (hcrcinalir'r rcfcrred to as 'Dll I" ), hou,ever, the same was dismissed. Aggrier.ed by the same. Writ Petition No.11983 of 2015 was pret-erred by respondent No.2 and the said Writ Petition was disposed ol by directing responclenl \ l ,-' 4 No.2 to dcposit a surn of Rupees One Crore u'ithin a stipulatcci Ileriod, and on failure of respondent No.2 to deposit thc sarrrc, rhc petitioncr-bank was allowcd to procced in accordance with thc lau . l\ 5131i,,* thus, thc llct itioncr-bank prayed fbr rc'iection o1- thc plaint on thc ground that the prescnt case comes undcr the .iulisdiction ol DIL'l', and the civil Court has no jurisdiction ro enterlain thc sarne.

4. '[he District C.ourt, or1 considering the pleadings and contcntiorrs aclvanccd on behalf of botli the partics, dismissed the said applicirtic)n b_v', the irnpugncd order on the glound that as the srrit u,as liled lbr specific perfbnnance of an agreernent ol salc, Section l.l o1- tlie SAI{FAESI Act lras no application and hence. tlrc I)l{T has no.julisdictiorr to detennine the matter and onlv thc civil ('ourl has.iurisdiction to entertain the rnatter. Agglieved by tlie said order. thc petitioner-bank lras filed present Civil Revision I'ctition. -i. l-earnu-d counsel appearir.rg lbr the petitioner-bank submittcd that the impugned order passed by the District Coult is ex-facic illegal; that thc.iurisdiction to deal rvith the present case lics u,ith a I-NA.J ( .R.P No.60J oJ2024 the DRT, as respondent No.2 has mortgaged the property with the petitioner-bank and the petitioner bank has invoked the provisions olthe SARFAESI Act. She further subrniucd that Section 34 of thc SAITFAESI Act debars civil Courts fionr entertaining any suit proceedings in respect of any matter in which the DIt'l' or the ,,\ppellatc fribunal are ernpowered to decide under thc SARFAESI Act, and hence, no injunction can be granted by any civil Court. She tirrlhcl contcndcd that a suit for specific per'lbrnrance cannot bc trled in lespect of the property mortgagcd to the bank in vieu, of specific bal lbr under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act ar-rd tinally, played to set aside the impugned order

6. Per contro, learned counsel fbr respondent No.l submitted that the irnpugned order was passed by the District Courl aftel due consiclelation ol lacts and the law. He further submitted that t[.re cause ol- action ibr filing the suit arose on the day of execution of agreement of sale and it still continues, as the obligation of cxecuting a registered sale deed by respondent No.2 is not completed. Learned counsel further subrnitted that respondent Nb. I was not aware of the financial assistance taken by respondent 6 No.2 fi'onr thc. petitioner-bank and creation of securrty intcrest ovcr the schedrrlctl pt'opert\,. and the said security was cr!-ated orrlv lltcr. the cxecution ol'the agrecurcnt olsalc, rvhich is plirla facic illcral and rrot bindinq on thc respondcnt No. 1. Hc I'urther contendecl that the atbresirid sr-rit is liled lbr spccific perforrnance of agreement o1- sale, and ;rs sLrch. the .iurisdiction for adjudicating the sarne lies q ith the c ir i I Courls. and the sanre cannot be detcrrnincd bv the DRI'. IIe lirralll, praled that the petition is liabte to dismissed as it is devoid oinrt-rit, and the impugned order shall be upl.reld. CoNSt DE tt,\' ( ) N:

7. Fronr thc above factual rr-ratrix ol the case and the rnaterial placcd on rccord, the only point that arises for consideration in this Rcvision Petition is whether the impugned order passed by thc District Judgc warrants interlerence by this Court?"

8. Learned counsel fbr the petitioner has relied upon the judgrnent ol the Hon'ble Supreflie Court in Jagtlish Singh vs. Heerald tnd Orst , ri,hcrein at para 2) of the said judgrnent, it is observed as liereunder: ' C013) 12 S( It l.t2 I 7 L'\"4,J C R P No 603 of2024 "'[he opening portion ol Section 34 clearly stotes tlnt no c ivil c'ourt shull lmve j urisdiction to entertain atql suit or proceeding "in respect of any matter" which a DRT or an ..lppellate Tribttnal is empov:ered by or tmder tlrc Sa(u.ritisdtion Act to determine. The expression'in rcspect of'ony mutler' refetetl to in Section 34 v,oultl takc in the "nett.tures" provided under sub-section t1) of Sectiut l3 o.i' tlrc Securit isctt iott Acl. ... "

9. l-carned counsel lbr respondent No.l has relied upon the iudgrrrcnt ot' the I lon'ble Supreme Courl in Daltiben rs. Aravittdbhui Kal1,a41 Bhunusali ond Othersz in support of l.ris contcrrlion that the plaint is liable to be rejected only when the asscrtions rnade i[r the plaint are contrary to statutory larv or .iudiciat dicta. 'l'he relcvant para 23.9 is extracted as hereunder: '' ln exercise o.l'power wtder tlis provision, lhe court u'oultl tleterntitrc if tlte ossertions made in the plaint are contran, lo slotutoN lox,. or.judicial dicto, for deciding wltelher tt tuseJbr rcjectitrg tlrc ltluirtl at tlte thresholtl is made out. "

10. lt is perline nt to note that ir-r the instant case, the plaint is ncithcl contrztrv to statutory larv nor judicial dicta. Theretbre, thc said plaint li led by respondent No. i is not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule I I CPC. '(2olo) 7 sc(: 366 I l\.i t I l? l' \o (01 ol 20:t I l. Learncd cor.urscl for rcspondent No.1 has also relied upon the judgrnent o1'thc Fligh Court oiMadras in Srore Bank of Indh, replrl b|, its (.-hiaf fu'lauuger Vs. G.Moorthi and Anothert, rvherein the lcarned single .lLrclgc has re t'erled and relicd upon the Full Bench judgrnent ol' the said l{igh Court and observed as hereunder:- ''Tltc ltn,t'.tta.ge ol lntlt tltc provisiott.s (.J(ction /,1 o/ 1?er:rl a'J' oI Dcltt.r l)tre /o l:ittuttt ial lttslittrliorts Ac1. 199-i (tttd Section 3J rtl .\.l l? l;.4 t:.,f L lc/ )()(t)t do nrtt torcr tr ditpiric hetvectt thircl pttt tit'.: r'clotittg to .s1tct ific' pt't'frtrnkttlc'e of un lrgrec letll of sttlc. lt tlt(n' .\otn('tit)t? ltoltltett tltttl tltc jrtri:;dittirtii .rrill ot,er lup utt:l i,: tleciilitt-q lltc tlut'.ttiott o/ s1ncit'ic pt'rfot ltauce, tlrc Civi.l Cotrrt nl(.t dl.\o lte cttrnltelled to decide ott tlte vulidit),o.f certoin t'nt'tttttlrrond'.\ Lt'(ulcd h.t llrc ugrcctnettl t'cttr{or. Such quesli()tt t'tutnol itt .stritl lo l'tL' lnrrtti hv tltt' pt t,t t'1ru1r of 1/1g ltto (tItr(Ittt('rtl.\ t.(|ert cd Io tthotc. '

12. Flonr the above .jr-rdgnrent, it is clear that the dispute with regard to spccil'ic pcrli)rmance ol an agreement ol sale between third parties is :rot cor elcd uuder the pror.isions ol the Recoverl, ol l)ebts Duc o ]rinancirrl Institutions Act. I993, arld the- SARITAIISl '2019 SCC Onlinc Mad ti6i -- I I I 9 Li\,4,J C.R.P No.60l of2024 Act ancl hencc, the civil Court has got.iurisdiction to adjudicate and decide thc sa icl disputc. Il. l-c-arnecl counsel lor respondent No.I also rclied upon thc .iLrclgrrent ol thc on'blc Suprcrne Cotrrt. in Robust Holels Privule t-imital unrl Olhers vs EIH l-imitcl unl Orsa, where in the abovc principle has bcen reiterated l-+. 'l he Hon'ble Supreu.rc Courl in Cenlral Bank of Indiu and unolher rs. Srr/. Probhn Juitr uurl Otherss, took a similar vieu, that thc jurisdiction of the civil Courl is ousted only in the rnatters which tlic DItl- ol DRAT is entpowered by or under the SAIU AL.SI Act to dctermine ar.rd that the suits claiming reliel beyond the jurisdiction olthe DR'l'or DRAT can be dealt with by the Civil coLlrts. For better appreciation, the relevant para i.e., para I8 ol tlic judgrncnt is cxtracted as hereunder: '' I t. f'urthcr, the SARFAESI Act is enacted essentially to provide a spcedv nrcchcmism .[or recovery of debts by bonks and financial irtstitutions. Tlrc SARFAESI Act has not been enacted for providing a mecltanism for adjudicating upon the validi4t of doc'unrcnts or to determine questions of tille finally. The DRT ' (20 r7) l scc 622 ' (2025 ) l5 SCC 38 10 C li P \ t aL).i t,t :t1:l doc.s nc,/ ltott' llte.jtrist.lictiotl to {r'uttl u dec'laration witlt re.tpecl to lil( tt()t l::uqc tlettl rtr lltt tttlt'tlt',.'tl tr: sottgltl 1,., tlte ltlointill. Tltc fttr;rri;r'tittn /o rlt'tlrtrt'u \ulL' (lL',.1 ot u tnot tlu!t' clt'ttl ht,in.g ill,.'-qttl ,: ti.;led .ritlt tlte t irii L'ott l un(l(r .Seclittrt a' of tltc ('otlt ol Civil I'rrtL t'dtrre. l'lttrc.littt. tltt t it il (ourl ltLr.\ tttt f tt i.;dtttiort lo lirullt'adjtrdicult'trytou lltc lir\t t\to rtlicl.,;. '

15. The above princilrle laicl dou.n b1, the Hon'ble Supreme Courl squarell,- applies to the instafrt case. [n thc present case. the relief sought lor in the suit is specilic pelli)rmance of agreernent ol sale. r.vhich explicitlv docs not lall under thc purvie \\, of' thc SARF AtiSI Act. tlte rcbv. inrposing u bar ou tlre jurisdiction ol thc civil Courts to crltefiain, ad.jutlicatc ancl decide the dispute. Scction l4 ol SARFAIiSLAc1 clearlv expresses that tl-re iurisdiction ol the ciVil Courts is barred onlv in relation lo nrattcrs rvhich the DltT or DRA-I' arc ermpou,cred to decide under the Act.

16. Section 9 of the Code of Cir"il I'rocedtrrc (CI'}C) manclates tliat civil Courts havc the porl,er to tr1, all suits of it civil nature. urlless their cognizancc is exprcssly or impliedly barred by law.

17. A conjoint reading of Scction 9 ol CPC ancl Section 34 ol SARIAIISI Act. in tht'light ol'thc ratio laid dorvn bv the [[on'ble ILl,J C R.P No.603 oI2024 I Suprerne Court in Prabha Jain's case (cited supra) and the iudgraent ol'the Iligh Court of Madras in G.Moorthi's case (cited sLrpra), urakes it clcar that the DR I docs r-urt have jurisdiction to acijr-rdicate upon the laliclity of the docuurents or to detemrine the clucstiorrs of titlc linally, and ir-r sucir mattcrs, only the civil Courts u ill lrave .julisdiction anrl Ir-rrther. on[y "in rcspect o1'any rnatter" ol suit or proceeding udrich a DR'['or DRAT are emporvered by or urrcler the SARFAF.Si Act to decide. the .jurisdiction of the civil ('oLrrts is barrctl. .,\s obscr-r ecl b1. thc I lon'ble Sr-rprelne ('ourt in Rohust Ilotels I)rivute Linited's case lcited sLrpra), thc expression "irr respect o1- anv nratter'" ivould takc in the "rncasures" provided unclcr sLrb-scction (4 ) o1' Scction I I ol thc SARFAESI Act. 'lhe rclie['ol'spccilic 1;ertbrmance of aqrecment of sale as sought for by rcspondent No. I hclcin in tire suit does not lall under sub-sectiorl (,1) of Scction ll of the SARFAESI Act, thereby, conlerring r.'xclusive .jlrrisdict irln on tht-' DR-f or DRAI'undcr the said Act. Iti. lrurthcmrure, as observed by the I{on'ble Supreme Courl in Robusl Hotels Privutc Limited's case (citcd supra), if the jurisdiction ovellalrs I ll deciding the cluestion of specific 1l /_ \:i l a /? P \ a),r-r /)f'4-'l perfonnancc. the civil Court tnay hc conipelled to decide thc validity o1- ccrtain encurlblances created b1, the agrecrncnt verrdor

19. Applying the saicl plinciplc to ttrc case on hand. cven il the charge creatcd bv lcspondcnl No.l ovcr the sch.'clLrle llropcr.tv as sccuritv to tht' loan obtained b1, lrinr fionr th.' l)etit ion!'r- hank overlaps rvith tlie .iurisdiction ol- the civil C'ourt in dcciding the question o1'specific perlbrrnance of ag,reenlent ol'salc said to havc been executcd by rcspondent No.2 in fai,our ol' r'cspondcnt No.l thc civil Court rvill lrave jurisdiction to trJ and deci(le the sanre as the same cannot be said to be barred by tl-re provisions o1- the Recoverv of Debts Duc to fiinancial lnstitutions .\ct. ]99i and SARIjAESI Act 2002.

20. Perusal of'the inrpugr-red onler reveals that the District Cotrrt had considcled in detail the scope arrd applicabilitl' o1'Section 34 ol the SARFADSI Act, in the contcxt cil'the reliel'sought b1, the pe'titioner, as to u,hether thc civil Cor-rr1 has got .iuri:;diction to trl tlre suit in vierv of specific bar under Section i4 of SAI{|,ALSI Act. -the l)isn'ict Court, after ureticulous analysis of the legal provisions governing he aspect ol jurisdiction, held that no valid l.l LN,l,J C.tt.P h"o.603 o12024 grounds are made for rejection of the plaint as provided under Orclel VII Rule l1 CPC and accordingly, dismissed the said rpplication. I l. In the light o1- the ltrregoinq cliscr.rssion and reasons, and also thc settled legal position. this Coult is o1- the considered opirrion thar the District ('trurt has rightly held that the DRT does not have.iurisdiction to acljudicatc u1>on thc sLrbject dispute and the sanre lalls under the jurisdiction ol thc cii,il Court and rightly clismissed the application. -fhe petitioner lailed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned older passed by the District Court rvarranting interl'ercnce by this Court. I lcncc, tl-re C]iviI Rcvision l)ctition Iails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no ordcl as to costs. ll. As a sequel. the rrisce llancous applications pending, if any, slrall stand closed Sd/- L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR a SECTION OFFICER ,TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Vl Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. I

2. One CC to Ms KALPANA EKBOTE, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI IV V. PRATAP KUNIAR, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI ASHISH SATUAT, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies li.('l,sI s, HIGH COURT DATED: 0210712025 ORDER CRP.No.603 of 2024 \ THE ) f a 04 ttcu pg * (-r1 Hence, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly Dismissed. k i 1/