Civil court jurisdiction barred where plaint shows SARFAESI dispute; plaint may be rejected at threshold.

Where the plaint averments themselves showed that the dispute concerned measures taken in relation to a secured asset under the SARFAESI Act, the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 because the Debts Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal were to determine the matter. The plaint disclosed that the statutory remedy under Section 17 was available, so the court could examine only the plaint pleadings and need not consider factual defences. On that basis, rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC was justified and the suit was not maintainable before the civil court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil suit was barred by Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and whether rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was justified on the basis of the plaint averments.

Analysis: The plaint itself disclosed that the dispute arose out of measures taken in relation to a secured asset and that the defendants had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. On the plaint allegations, the property formed part of the secured asset and the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act was available. In such a situation, Section 34 barred the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of matters the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal was empowered to determine. The courts below therefore examined only the plaint averments and correctly declined to enter into factual defences. Rejection of the plaint at the threshold was consistent with the principle that a barred claim may be nipped in the bud.

Conclusion: The bar under Section 34 operated, the plaint was rightly rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d), and the suit was not maintainable before the civil court.

Final Conclusion: The statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 remained the appropriate forum, and the second appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the plaint averments themselves show that the dispute falls within the field covered by Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the civil court's jurisdiction is barred and the plaint may be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---