- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010186792021 NC: 2026:KHC:39635 RFA No. 363 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 363 OF 2021 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. P. NANDA KUMAR (SINCE DECEASED) REP. BY LEGAL HEIR SMT. P. N. VIJAYA LAKSHMI W/O. SRI. P. NANDA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. SMT. P. N. VIJAYA LAKSHMI W/O. SRI. P. NANDA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/A. FLAT NO. 204, GROUND FLOOR, 2ND BLOCK, SHOBHA DEW FLOWER APARTMENTS, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD, J. P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. D GOVINDA, ADVOCATE; V/O DATED 5/6/26, A2 IS TREATED AS LR’S OF DECEASED A1) AND: 1. HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE LIMITED HAVING THEIR CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.27 A, GROUND FLOOR, DEVELOPED INDUSTRIAL AREA GUINDY, Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010186792021 NC: 2026:KHC:39635 RFA No. 363 of 2021 CHENNAI - 600 032. HAVING THEIR OFFICE ALSO AT NO.2/6, RAJKUMAR ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, ABOVE MAX HERO SHOW ROOM, RAJAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/DIRECTOR. 2. SRI. G. BHAKTHAVATSALAM S/O. LATE PANDURANGAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. SRI. G. SANKETH S/O. SRI. G. BHAKTHAVATSALAM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. A/18 G-2, BRIGADE MEDOWS APARTMENTS, KANAKAPUR ROAD, YADAYAPURA POST, OPPOSITE ANJANEYA TEMPLE, BANGALORE - 560 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RADHA R, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M PRAKASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. MADHUSUDHANA K V, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2021 PASSED ON I.A. 1/2019 IN O.S.NO.25451/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU DATED 09.04.2021 AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010186792021 NC: 2026:KHC:39635 RFA No. 363 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs calling in question the order passed on I.A.No.1 of 2019 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in O.S.No.25451/2017 dated 09.04.2021 by the Court of IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, (CCH-21), whereby the plaint is rejected by allowing the application as the suit is barred by law. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs are tenants over the suit schedule property and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the owners of the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have availed loan from defendant No.1 by mortgaging the suit schedule property with defendant No.1. Then, defendant - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010186792021 NC: 2026:KHC:39635 RFA No. 363 of 2021 Nos.2 and 3 become defaulter. Therefore, defendant No.1 has initiated SARFAESI proceedings under the Secularization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Interest Act , 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’). Then, the plaintiffs filed the suit by raising contentions that he is the agreement holder of purchasing suit property with defendant Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from evicting the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property, without due process of law. 4. The defendant No.1 has filed written statement and contended that he is the secured creditor, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have availed loan from defendant No.1 by mortgaging the suit schedule property and then defendant No.1 become defaulter. Defendant No.1 has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the suit is not maintainable as barred by law. Accordingly, filed application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010186792021 NC: 2026:KHC:39635 RFA No. 363 of 2021 5. The trial Court has allowed the application and rejected the plaint as barred by law as per Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC that the case of the plaintiffs comes under class II category that the lease created by the plaintiffs with defendant Nos.2 and 3 is after the mortgage and lease is unregistered one. Hence, there a bar under the SARFAESI Act. Hence, allowed the application and rejected the plaint as barred by law. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff is agreement holder with defendant Nos.2 and 3 and he is ready to settled the matter with defendant No.1 and also in this regard, transactions are going on and defendant No.1 had offered some amount and for this, the plaintiffs are ready for negotiation. Therefore, prays to grant liberty to the plaintiff to make negotiation with defendant No.1 for settling the matter. 7. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 justified the order passed by the trial Court and submitted that the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010186792021 NC: 2026:KHC:39635 RFA No. 363 of 2021 plaintiffs does not have locus standi to make settlement with defendant No.1. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal by justifying the order passed by the trial Court. 8. Considering the submissions made by both the parties, the appeal is simply against the order from the trial Court of rejecting the plaint by entertaining the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Therefore, when the plaint is rejected and unless on this aspect there is no consideration of the case on merits in the appeal. The plaint is rejected as barred by law. Admittedly, the agreement is unregistered document. Defendant No.1 raises question regarding maintainability of the suit contending as it is barred by law. There is no demonstration by the learned counsel for the appellants/ plaintiff how the suit is maintainable, whereas the learned counsel for defendant No.1 by placing various rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court submitted that the suit is barred by law. Hence, the plaint is not maintainable. The initiation of proceedings under SARFAESI Act is mere a - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010186792021 NC: 2026:KHC:39635 RFA No. 363 of 2021 subject matter in the suit, therefore as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the suit is barred by law. Hence, there is no illegality and perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 9. However, liberty is given to the plaintiff to make negotiation with defendant No.1 by joining hands with defendant Nos.2 and 3 to make settlement of the issue involved within the parties and for which, defendant No.1 shall co-operate for negotiation and take any appropriate decision. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14