Madras High Court
M.Sridharan vs K.S.Gopinath Rao on 4 January, 2024
Author: V.Sivagnanam
Bench: V.Sivagnanam
CRP No.4842 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRP No.4842 of 2023
M.Sridharan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. K.S.Gopinath Rao
2. M.Santhipriya
3. PNB Housing Finance Limited,
Head office No.C-45, Opp. to Olympia Tech park,
Near BSNL Office, Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
4. PNB Housing Finance Ltd.,
Sudharsan Building, III Floor,
No.4, Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai 600014. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 05.09.2023 passed in the
plaint in O.S.SR No.3173/2023 by the District Munsif Judge, Ambattur and
consequently, direct the District Munsif Judge, Ambattur to number the
plaint.
1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.4842 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pugazvendan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order
dated 05.09.2023 passed in O.S.SR No.3173/2023 by the District Munsif,
Ambattur and consequently, direct the District Munsif, Ambattur to number
the plaint.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he had filed a suit in OS SR
No.3173/2023 before the above said Court seeking permanent injunction
against the respondents herein and after hearing the petitioner, the learned
District Munsif had passed the impugned order on 05.09.2023, rejecting the
plaint. Hence, this civil revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have perused the
materials on record.
2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. A perusal of the records shows that the petitioner is the plaintiff
and the respondents 1 to 4 are the defendants in the above said suit. The
petitioner herein is the lessee under the respondents 1 and 2 herein, the
owners of the property. The respondents 3 and 4, the Finance Company, had
given loan to the respondents 1 and 2 and subsequently they initiated action
against the respondents 1 and 2 under SARFAESI Act for non payment of
the outstanding amount. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed a
suit in OS SR.No.3173/2023 against the respondents seeking permanent
injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from evicting or
dispossessing him from the property, except under due process of law.
5. After hearing, the above said suit was rejected by the learned
District Munsif at the SR stage itself, on the ground that, when the
proceedings are initiated under SARFAESI Act, the civil court has no
jurisdiction to try a suit, since there is a specific bar under Section 34 of the
SARFAESI Act and the remedy is only before the appellate authority and
not before the civil court.
3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, the petitioner being a lawful lessee, he should be protected from
ejectment proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. To support his
contentions, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vishal Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India and others in Criminal Appeal
No.52/2016 reported in 2016(4) L.W.7; and also the decision of this Court
in S.A.No.432/2021, dated 17.12.2021 (M.Ezhilmaran Vs. K.Karunanidhi
and two others).
7. The above judgments, relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are not applicable to the case of the petitioner, because the law of
principle settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that, if a person or a
tenant has claimed declaratory relief over the secured debt, there is no bar to
the civil court to entertain the suit. But, here in this case, there is no
declaratory claim by the petitioner over the secured debt and his claim
before the civil court is only for permanent injunction, not to evict him,
except due process of law. In such circumstances, the above decisions,
4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
relied upon by the petitioner are not helpful to the case of the petitioner. As
such, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
learned District Munsif and hence, the civil revision petition is liable to be
dismissed, as it has no merits.
8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the
impugned order passed by the learned District Munsif, Ambattur in O.S.SR
3173/2023, dated 05.09.2023 is upheld. No costs.
04.01.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
mst
To
1. The District Munsif, Ambattur.
5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.,
mst
04.01.2024
6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
