Civil court jurisdiction survives where SARFAESI tribunals cannot decide title disputes; partial plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is impermissible.

Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act bars civil court jurisdiction only for matters the DRT or DRAT is empowered to decide; it does not extend to title disputes or to final adjudication of the validity of an antecedent sale deed or mortgage deed, nor to consequential possession relief in these circumstances. The civil court therefore retained jurisdiction over the declaratory and possession claims. Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not permit partial rejection of a plaint where a substantial maintainable cause of action survives. The plaint could not be rejected because the declaratory reliefs were not barred, and the suit was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in respect of prayers for declaration that the sale deed and mortgage deed were illegal and for possession of the suit property; (ii) Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when part of the reliefs were not barred.

Issue (i): Whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in respect of prayers for declaration that the sale deed and mortgage deed were illegal and for possession of the suit property.

Analysis: Section 34 bars only those suits or proceedings in respect of matters which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 17 extends to examining the legality of measures taken under Section 13(4), not to adjudicating title disputes or finally determining the validity of an antecedent sale deed or mortgage deed executed before the secured creditor invoked the Act. The power under Section 17, as it stood applicable to the suit, also did not enable the Tribunal to hand over possession to a claimant who was neither the borrower nor a person in possession whose possession could be restored. The civil court therefore retained jurisdiction over the declaratory reliefs and the consequential possession relief claimed by the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The civil suit was not barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in respect of the substantive reliefs claimed, and the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when part of the reliefs were not barred.

Analysis: A plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. If any substantial relief survives within the jurisdiction of the civil court, the plaint must proceed as a whole. Since the declaratory reliefs were maintainable and were not barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the application for rejection of the plaint could not succeed even on the assumption that one of the consequential reliefs might not lie before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: Rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 was impermissible.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view restoring the suit was affirmed, and the civil suits were directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 excludes civil court jurisdiction only to the extent the Tribunal is empowered to decide the matter, and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not permit partial rejection of a plaint when a maintainable cause of action survives.

---