Mir Dara Sheko, J. - (1.) The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed by the petitioner Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited assailing order dated August 03, 2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 19 of 2015 (Twadanya Agarwal Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Another) by which the application filed on June 14, 2016 by the petitioner as defendant in said suit under Order VII Rule 11(D) of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer that the plaint would be rejected as it was barred by the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (shortly to be called as SARFAESI Act). Background of the dispute is as follows:- (i) Pursuant to approach to the petitioner bank by the Directors of M/s. Narottam Plywood Industries Private Ltd. & M/s. Toshita Fiscal Services Private Ltd. for financial assistance and taking over their pre-existing loan from Standard Chartered Bank and for extending further loan facility there was a registered agreement on August 19, 2011 against the securities of properties being Flat Nos. 3C and 3D situated at 6, Burdwan Road, Kolkata, and thereby the petitioner sanctioned further amount of Rs. 240 lacs and 270 lacs 56 thousand 3 hundred and 50 only to M/s. Narottam Plywood Private Ltd. (ii)During continuation of transactions since there were alleged defaults the petitioner recalled all the loan facilities and initiated proceeding under SARFAESI Act, 2002 by issuing statutory notice under Section 16(2) on August 16, 2013. (iii) Newspaper publication also was held on August 20, 2013 under Section 13(2) of the Act. Possession notice also was issued to the defaulter to take symbolic possession under Section 13(4) of the Act. (iv) The opposite party Twadanya Agarwal son of Rajesh Agarwal at that juncture moved an application being S.A. No. 1386 of 2013 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II for quashing said notice issued by the petitioner and for injunction so that the petitioner would not be able to take any step in respect of aforesaid Flat No. 3D of 6, Burdwan Road. (v)The Tribunal on February 14, 2014 refused to grant any order of temporary injunction. (vi) The opposite party thereafter on January 29, 2015 filed title suit no. 19 of 2015 before the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore for declaration and injunction against the petitioner. (vii) The petitioner appearing in said suit and raising bar of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act to assume jurisdiction by the Civil Court to adjudicate dispute of the present nature prayed to record necessary order for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) Though learned Counsels of both sides argued on merit with aspiring to have intended order from the High Court by disposal of this matter on merit, but this Court may have some reservation by refraining from doing so.
(3.) It is obvious that the special or extraordinary remedy by invoking revisional jurisdiction is not supposed to be exercised by this Court, unless it is a last resource for any aggrieved litigant in the State, or alternatively, there is no other efficacious remedy opened to such aggrieved person except moving before the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.;