Bhaiyalal Tiwari v. Central Bank of India, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 8889

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Friday, August 30, 2024

Printed For: Law Office Delhi .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Appeal No. 141/2012
Bhaiyalal Tiwari v. Central Bank of India
2013 SCC OnLine MP 8889 : AIR 2014 MP 57 : (2014) 4 BC 139
(BEFORE ROHIT ARYA, J.)
Bhaiyalal Tiwari
v.
Central Bank of India and others.
Shri D.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Harshwardhan Topre, Advocate for respondent.
Second Appeal No. 141/2012
Decided on November 12, 2013
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal is directed against the st concurrent judgment and decree passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior dated 29.2.2012, confirming the judgment
and decree dated 21.6.2011 passed by the 8th Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior in Civil
Suit No. 16-A/11.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:
The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction, contending inter-alia that he is
claiming to be a tenant in the suit property of defendant No. 3 for many years.
Tenancy is oral and on the monthly rent of Rs. 600/- per month. He has mentioned
dates 25.1.2011 and 29.1.2011 the dates when the cause of action arose, when
respondent-defendant No. 1 came to his house initially in his absence and later on in
his presence threatening the appellant/plaintiff to evict the suit property.
3. The defendant - respondent No. 1, Central Bank of India and defendant -

respondent No. 2 auction purchaser, Joyti Sharma have filed separate applications
under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, denying the plaint's allegations to the
effect that neither respondent-defendant No. 3 is the owner of the suit property nor
the plaintiff-appellant is the tenant therein, instead the suit property was mortgaged
by the defendant No. 3 with the defendant No. 1 as security for the loan advanced to
M/s Shubham Readymade Fashion House Proprietor Smt. Pushpa Mishra wife of S.K.
Mishra, since the debtor failed to repay the loan and discharged its liability to the
bank, defendant - respondent No. 1 took recourse under the provision of Section 13 of
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter to the SARFAESI Act 2002) and physical possession
was taken by preparing Panchnama duly signed by the erstwhile owner, the defendant
No. 3 amongst others on 17.3.2010. The suit property was put to auction in
accordance with the provisions of the Act by publishing sale on 15th May, 2010 in the
Hindi News paper “Daink Bhaskar” The auction took place on 16.6.2010 and the
defendant No. 2 being highest bidder, the same was notified by the Bank on
24.6.2010, the sale certificate was issued on 30.7.2010 in the Hindi News Paper
“Danik Bhaskar”. There was no tenant in the suit premises either at the time of taking
possession of the suit property or at the time of action, or at the time sale certificate
was issued in favour of defendant No. 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. It was submitted that Section 34 of 2002 Act bars jurisdiction of civil Court and
says; no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in
respect of any matter which a Debt Recovery Tribunal or the appellate tribunal is
empowered by or under this Act of 2002 to determine and no injunction shall be
granted by any Court or other authority in respect any action taken or to be taken in
pursuance of any power conferred under this Act or under the Recovery of Debt Due to
Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993. It was further submitted that Section 17 of
the Act 2002 provides for right to appeal and confer right on a person aggrieved by
any of the measures referred to in sub Section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured
creditor or his authorized officer under chapter 3 of the Act 2002. In view of the
aforesaid it was contended that no cause of action had arisen in the instant case to file
a suit for permanent injunction and jurisdiction of the civil Court is clearly barred. It
was accordingly prayed that under Order 7 Rule 11 (D) suit was not maintainable and
deserves to be dismissed.
5. The trial Court by a detailed order has rightly found that in view of Section 34 of the
Act 2002, trial Court has no jurisdiction. The trial Court further referred documents
filed by the bank and observed that there was paper publication by the respondent
bank at the time of taking possession of the suit property on 17.3.2010, the
possession was taken in the presence of defendant No. 3, erstwhile owner along with
other witnesses by preparation of Panchnama. Lock was put in the suit premises by
the defendant bank on 17.3.2010. Thereafter in Hindi News Paper “Danik Bhaskar”
auction notice was issued on 15.5.2010 and auction took place on 16.6.2010. The sale
certificate was issued in favour of the defendant No. 2. As such, the entire proceedings
were initiated right from from taking possession till issuance of sale certificate under
the SARFAESI Act, There is specific provision to file an appeal under Section 17 of the
Act and hence suit was not maintainable. The civil suit was accordingly dismissed.
6. First Appellate Court has held that the appellant failed to establish that he was the
tenant in the suit property. It is clear from the mortgaged document that there is no
mention of any tenancy in the suit premises at the time of mortgage of the suit
property and further reiterated the fact related to taking over the possession on
17.3.2010 by the Bank by preparing Panchnama wherein erstwhile owner affixed her
signature, Thereafter auction notice was issued followed by auction on and issuance of
sale certificate. At no point of time any objection was raised by the appellant.
Complete factual details are mentioned in para 12 of the order. Resultantly, the appeal
was dismissed as the suit under Order 7 Rule 11-(a) the suit was not maintainable.
7. Before the this Court, the appellant reiterated the same submissions.
Heard.
8. The controversy involved in this appeal centres around the provisions contained in
the SARFAESI Act. The mortgaged document executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of
defendant No. 1 Bank in respect of suit property, nowhere mentioned that the
appellant was tenant in the suit premises. Admittedly the possession of the suit
property has been taken in presence of defendant No. 3 after preparation of
Panchnama dated 17.3.2010 under Section 13 (4) of the Act and lock was put on it.
Thereafter auction notice was published in Hindi News Paper “Danik Bhaskar” and
auction was conducted. No objection was raised as against the said auction, it is
followed by issuance of sale certificate 30.7.2010. The appellant claims to be a tenant
of defendant No. 3 on the basis of oral tenancy. There is no clinching evidence to
establish the right of appellant as tenant in the suit premises. These findings are
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
recorded by both the Courts below. There is specific bar under Section 34 of the Act.
The Section 34 talks about bar which is as under.
Section 34. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction - No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to
entrain 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).
Admittedly, proceedings have been initiated by the Bank under Section 13 (4) of the
Act, Civil Court has no power to grant any injunction much less permanent injunction.
Specific remedy by filing appeal under Section 17 of the Act is available.
9. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant 2011 (2) MPHT
300 Selection (Partnership Firm) v. Chief Manager, Central Bank of India and
judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2009) 1 SCC 646 are distinguishable on
facts.
10. In view of the aforesaid there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court
while dismissing the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) as well as order of the first
appellate Court justifying the dismissal of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of CPC.
In the opinion of this Court, both the provisions are attracted as not only suit is barred
under Section 34 of the Act 2002 but also the appellant could not establish himself to
be a tenant in the suit premises.
11. In view of the aforesaid, no question of law much less substantial question of law
arise, appeal being devoid of substance, the same is hereby dismissed.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

Bhaiyalal Tiwari v. Central Bank of India, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 8889

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bhaiyalal Tiwari v. Central Bank of India, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 8889

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bhaiyalal Tiwari v. Central Bank of India, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 8889

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Friday, August 30, 2024

Second Appeal No. 141/2012

Bhaiyalal Tiwari v. Central Bank of India

2013 SCC OnLine MP 8889 : AIR 2014 MP 57 : (2014) 4 BC 139

(BEFORE ROHIT ARYA, J.)

2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:

3. The defendant - respondent No. 1, Central Bank of India and defendant -

You might also like