[2025:RJ-JP:32951] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 146/2023 L.i.c. Housing Finance Ltd., C-98, Upasana Tower, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajashtan, Through Manager/director. ----Petitioner/Defendant Versus 1. Manoj Kumar Mehta Son Of Shri Ahso Kumar Mehta, Resident Of Plot No. 2, Kabir Colony-2, Sushilpura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur At Present Residing At Flat No. 201, Second Floor, Industrial Residential Scheme, Shanti Nagar, Opposite N.b.c. Khatipura Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Aasif Qureshi Son Of Haji Ramjan Qureshi, Resident Of Plot No. 362, Vaidh Marg, Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura C, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Wasim Ahamad Son Of Jamil Ahmad, Resident Of Flat No. T-5147-A Block 37 Rangoli Garden, Kanakpura, Panchyawala, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Sub-Registrar-V, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal Mr. Laxmi Kant Tailor For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 21/08/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.3 (for short ‘the defendant No.3’) against the order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metro-II (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 80/2022 whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. [2025:RJ-JP:32951] (2 of 3) [CR-146/2023] Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaration of the sale deed dated 28.02.2020 as null and void and permanent injunction against the defendants in which the defendant No.3 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 18.04.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.3. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 submits that by way of the suit, plaintiff wanted to challenge the proceedings of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) initiated against respondent No.2-defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant No.1’). As per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, civil court had no jurisdiction to try the matter and a person who has any grievance can approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act but the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.3. So, the petition filed by the defendant No.3 be allowed, the order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. No one has put in appearance for the respondents. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendant No.3 and perused the impugned order. Defendant No.1 had taken a loan from defendant No.3 on plot No. 16. On account of non-payment, proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act were initiated against defendant No.1. Learned trial Court has committed an error in entertaining the suit because as per Section 17 of the SARFAESI [2025:RJ-JP:32951] (3 of 3) [CR-146/2023] Act, plaintiff should have challenged the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and not before the civil court. So, the petition filed by the defendant No.3 deserves to be allowed. The petition filed by the defendant No.3 is allowed. The order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being barred by law. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/69