Sanjulata Vishwakarma vs State Bank of India

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—He is heard on the question of admission.

On behalf of the applicant-defendant no. 2, this revision is preferred u/s 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 14.2.2014, passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Khurai, district Sagar in COS No. 11-B/2012, whereby his application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the suit filed by the respondent no. 1 for recovery of the sum of Kishan Credit Card for dismissal of such suit has been dismissed.

The applicant''s counsel after taking me through the petition as well as pleadings of the parties alongwith the impugned application of Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, so also the impugned order by referring Section 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, (in short "The Act") argued that in respect of the loan transaction with the bank, the civil court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the suit for recovery of the money at the instance of the bank and in such premises, the impugned suit was not entertainable before the civil court but contrary to such provisions, his application has been wrongly dismissed by the trial court under wrong premises.

In the course of arguments, on asking the counsel that what type of transactions are covered under the Act and which transactions are not covered and whether such situation was stated in the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, on which he said that no such specific circumstances were mentioned in the application. Such application was filed only by mentioning Section 34 of the Act without mentioning any elaborate facts in the same. In continuance, he said that elaborate pleadings in this regard is made in the WS and for that purpose the issue has already been framed in the matter and if on the aforesaid question the issue has not been framed, then the applicant may take appropriate step before such court to frame the issue and in such premises, prayed to dispose of this revision by extending a liberty to the applicant to file an appropriate application by mentioning elaborate facts and circumstances before the trial court for framing additional issue with respect of the dispute raised in this revision with further prayer for appropriate direction to the trial court that after framing the issue on such question by extending an opportunity of hearing to the parties decide the same as preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2 of the CPC as to decide such issue recording of evidence is not necessary with further direction to the trial court that such issue be decided without influencing from any observation or finding made by such court in the order impugned.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions, after perusing the record, in the available circumstance, this revision is disposed of by extending a liberty to the applicant to file an appropriate application before the trial court under Order 14, Rule 5 of CPC, if the issue has not been framed in the aforesaid question and pursuant to it, the trial court is directed to consider such application with justice oriented approach after framing issue in the matter by extending opportunity of hearing decide the same as preliminary issue without influencing from any observation or finding made by such court in the order impugned.

However, the respondent-bank is extended a liberty to approach this court with appropriate proceeding, if it is aggrieved by this order or any part of it.

There shall be order as to cost.

Cc as per rules.