- (1.) Defendant No. 1 is before this court challenging the order dated 21.5.2011, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by it under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that agreement dated 6.11.2007 between the parties is null and void and is a result of fraud, forgery and consequential relief of permanent injunction was sought restraining the petitioner from realising the amount/benefit under the alleged non-existent agreement. The suit was filed in January, 2009. It is in the aforesaid suit that application for rejection of the plaint was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the learned court below. The order has been impugned before this court.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint was primarily under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC. Firstly, the suit is barred by law and secondly, the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. He further submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the 2002 Act') and 18 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, 'the 1993 Act'), the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. Even if the plea of fraud is raised, the suit can be tried by Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, 'the DRT'). Learned counsel further referred to the pleadings in the plaint in support of his contention. A bare perusal thereof does not make out a case of fraud. The primary relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit is of injunction, for which there is absolute bar. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff could file cross-objections before DRT.;