Madhya Pradesh High Court: a plaint can't be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC just because one relief is SARFAESI-barred

A bank had taken possession of a mortgaged house under the SARFAESI Act after the borrower defaulted on his loan. His sister then sued the bank and the borrower for declaration of her 50% share under a will, partition, and a permanent injunction, arguing the property had been mortgaged without her knowledge or consent. The bank sought rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 bars civil courts from entertaining any suit concerning action taken over a secured asset, and that the aggrieved party's remedy lay only in an application under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The trial court declined to reject the plaint.

Justice Vinay Saraf of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, sitting at Indore, dismissed the bank's revision petition, applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain that a plaint cannot be rejected in part: since the reliefs of declaration of title and partition were plainly outside the Debts Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction and therefore not barred, the plaint had to survive as a whole even if the injunction relief against the bank might separately be barred by Section 34. The bank remains free to raise that objection to the injunction relief at trial. This ruling binds courts in Madhya Pradesh; it is a High Court precedent, not one of the Supreme Court.