https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458388 The MP HC dismissed a second appeal challenging rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The trial court correctly rejected the plaint based on plaint averments showing property dispute between parties regarding different khasra numbers (260 vs 1039). The court held that civil court jurisdiction was barred under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, and properly applied "nip in the bud" principle. The appellant had adequate remedy through appeal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. No substantial question of law or jurisdictional error found in lower court orders. en-us Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:42:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458388 The MP HC dismissed a second appeal challenging rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The trial court correctly rejected the plaint based on plaint averments showing property dispute between parties regarding different khasra numbers (260 vs 1039). The court held that civil court jurisdiction was barred under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, and properly applied "nip in the bud" principle. The appellant had adequate remedy through appeal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. No substantial question of law or jurisdictional error found in lower court orders. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458388