Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Through It S ... vs Anwar Haji Ajij Kachchi on 28 February, 2020
Author: V. K. Jadhav
Bench: V. K. Jadhav
ca14359.19
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
956 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14359 OF 2019
IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST/36838/2019
MAHARASHTRA GRAMIN BANK, THROUGH IT S REGIONAL
MANAGER, ASHOK NANDLAL GATTANI
VERSUS
ANWAR HAJI AJIJ KACHCHI
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Patil Milind M. (Beedkar)
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. G.R. Syed
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 28 th FEBRUARY, 2020
PER COURT:-
1. Heard both sides.
2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 188
days caused in filing the civil revision application.
3. The applicant is the original defendant. The respondent
original plaintiff has instituted the Regular Civil Suit No. 476 of 2018
simplicitor for perpetual injunction without seeking any declaration.
Admittedly, the action initiated as against the respondent-plaintiff is
under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The
applicant bank has therefore filed an application under Order VII Rule
11 clause (d) of C.P.C. thereby raising objection about the jurisdiction
of the civil court. The trial court has rejected the application on
::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 12:37:07 :::
ca14359.19
-2-
20.2.2019. However, delay has been occurred due to some
procedural aspects of obtaining sanction from the Head office and
after completion of the formalities, the revision has been preferred.
There is no intentional delay as such.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly resisted the
application. The respondent has also filed affidavit in reply. Learned
counsel for the respondent-original plaintiff submits that the applicant
bank is playing all tactics to prolong the matter. Even though the
respondent-plaintiff has filed an application to call for certain record
in respect of the loan amount from the office of the applicant,
however, the applicant bank is not willing to produce the record
before the court and as such killing the time. There is inordinate
delay in filing the civil revision application. No satisfactory
explanation is tendered for condonation of delay. Learned counsel
submits that the application is thus liable to be rejected.
5. It appears that the delay has been caused due to compliance
of some procedural formalities and the administrative sanction etc.
from the Head office of the applicant bank. It is also important to note
that the applicant has filed application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of
C.P.C. in terms of the provisions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 pointing out to the court that the civil court has no jurisdiction.
Thus, considering entire aspects of the case, I am inclined to
condone the delay. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 12:37:07 :::
ca14359.19
-3-
ORDER
I. Civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B".
II. Civil application is disposed of accordingly.
List the civil revision application on 26.3.2020 for admission.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.) rlj/ ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 12:37:07 :::