Parallel SARFAESI and civil remedies may be inconsistent, while triable tenancy claims can survive Order VII Rule 11(d).

A secured creditor should not pursue parallel civil recovery and SARFAESI enforcement where the claim has not crystallised and the remedies operate inconsistently; the text states that the debtor's timely attempt to deposit the decretal amount on reopening attracted the limitation principle reflected in Section 4 of the Limitation Act, and the auction founded on that parallel course was vulnerable. It also states that a tenant's injunction suit raising triable tenancy issues is not rejectable under Order VII Rule 11(d) merely because SARFAESI proceedings are pending, since eviction must follow due process of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bank could simultaneously pursue the civil suit and invoke the SARFAESI remedy during pendency of the suit, and whether the judgment debtor was entitled to deposit the decreetal amount after the court reopened; (ii) Whether the tenant's suit for injunction was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the bank could simultaneously pursue the civil suit and invoke the SARFAESI remedy during pendency of the suit, and whether the judgment debtor was entitled to deposit the decreetal amount after the court reopened?

Analysis: The suit claim had not attained final crystallization when the bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings, and the bank continued both remedies in parallel. The Court held that civil court proceedings and enforcement under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 operated in inconsistent fields in the facts of the case and the bank ought to have elected one remedy. It further held that the debtor had taken timely steps to deposit the decreetal amount on the reopening day, attracting the principle underlying Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The alleged auction sale was treated as vitiated because it was founded on an impermissible parallel course and the auction purchaser acquired no protected equity.

Conclusion: The objection to deposit failed, the revision was allowed, and the sale certificate and sale deed were directed to be cancelled upon deposit of the decreetal amount.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant's suit for injunction was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

Analysis: The suit sought protection against eviction otherwise than in accordance with law, and the tenancy-related questions were held to require trial. Relying on the principle that a tenant cannot be evicted except by due process of law, the Court held that the mere invocation of SARFAESI did not by itself justify rejection of the plaint at the threshold. The maintainability question was therefore distinct from the merits of the tenancy claims.

Conclusion: The plaint was not rejectable under Order VII Rule 11(d) and the revision challenging dismissal of that application failed.

Final Conclusion: The first revision was allowed with consequential directions for deposit and cancellation of the auction sale, while the connected revision was dismissed, leaving the tenant's suit to proceed to trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A secured creditor cannot pursue inconsistent parallel remedies so as to defeat a judgment debtor's lawful opportunity to satisfy the decree, and a plaint raising triable tenancy issues cannot be rejected merely because SARFAESI proceedings are pending.

---