Judgment :- The second defendant-Bank has filed this revision challenging the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Attur, Salem District, granting the order of status quo in the interim injunction application filed by the plaintiffs, on the ground that the very suit and the Interlocutory Application are not maintainable in view of the specific bar contained in Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. .2. The case in brief is as follows: .The revision petitioner is the second defendant in the suit O.S.No.14 of 2007 filed by respondents 1 and 2 for the relief of partition and separate possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction and for costs. The plaintiffs have also filed the present I.A.No.86 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151 CPC praying for the grant of ad interim injunction. The Court below ordered status quo by order dated 19.02.2007. Aggrieved over the said order, the second defendant is before this Court by way of revision. .3. The Plaint averments are that the plaintiffs are daughter and son of the first .defendant and they are in custody of their mother. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are having equal shares in the A and B schedule properties as members of the Hindu undivided family. The suit properties were purchased by the first defendant as karta of the Hindu undivided family from the income of the ancestral properties belonged to plaintiffs and the first defendant and hence the suit properties are to be considered as properties derived from the ancestral nucleus. The chitta and adangal regarding "B" shedule properties were produced along with the plaint. The first defendant is leading lavish life and having bad company. The first defendant was running a hotel, using the joint family fund. Though the first defendant was capable of repaying the loan, failed to pay the instalments of debts knowing fully well that the second defendant will take action on the basis of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The suit properties are Hindu undivided family properties, the plaintiffs and first defendant are entitled to their respective share in the suit properties and hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit. 4. Pending the said suit, the plaintiffs also filed I.A.No:86 of 2007 to grant ad interim injunction restraining the second defendant-bank not to bring the A Schedule properties for sale by auction. 4. Pending the said suit, the plaintiffs also filed I.A.No:86 of 2007 to grant ad interim injunction restraining the second defendant-bank not to bring the A Schedule properties for sale by auction. The learned Subordinate Judge, Attur, ordered status quo. Aggrieved of the same, the present CRP has been filed by the second defendant-bank. .5. It is the case of the revision petitioner/bank that the first defendant, third respondent herein availed a housing loan from the petitioner Bank during April 2004 in a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for construction of the House. To secure the loan he had mortgaged the suit property measuring 2800 sq.,ft.,of land comprised in S.Nos:564/1, 564/2 n patta No.477, Manivizhuthan Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District. The first defendant initially paid some installments regularly, but subsequently defaulted in repayment of the loan. Therefore the petitioner-Bank had initiated action under SARFAESI Act by issuing a notice under Section 13(2) of the said Act on 17. 2006 granting 60 days time for repayment of the loan. The third respondent failed to repay the loan amount and hence possession notice dated 111. 2006 was issued and symbolic possession was also taken by the Bank. Despite that, the first defendant did not repay the loan amount. Thereafter the property was brought for sale and the auction was scheduled on 21. 2007. While so, the first defendant had set up his wife to file a suit on behalf their minor children namely Sathya and Prabakaran, represented by his wife who are arrayed as first and second respondents herein. The suit has been filed for a preliminary decree of partition of the suit property on the ground that the suit property was purchased out of the earnings of ancestral property and the first defendant who had availed loan amount had misused the same in gambling and drink and therefore they are entitled to the ancestral family property. 6. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-Bank the suit was filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with the first defendant with mala fide intention in order to defeat the claim of the revision petitioner-Bank and to frustrate the action initiated under the SARFEASI Act. 6. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-Bank the suit was filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with the first defendant with mala fide intention in order to defeat the claim of the revision petitioner-Bank and to frustrate the action initiated under the SARFEASI Act. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the SARFAESI Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the SARFAESI Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, as provided in Section 34 of the SARFAEI Act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the suit itself ought not to have been entertained at all by the learned Subordinate Judge and the order of status quo passed by the learned Judge is without jurisdiction and thus there is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that the Bank is not a proper and necessary party to the suit and only to obtain an interim order of injunction to avoid auction sale, the Bank has been impleaded as a party. 7. To decide the maintainability of the suit, a combined reading of the Sections 13,17,18,34 and 35 of the SURFAESI Act, which are relevant, is necessary and the same will bring out the following procedure to be adopted under the said Act: .(1) When a borrower has become a defaulter in repayment of secured debt and his account is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, the secured creditor can send a notice in writing under sec.13(2) to discharge in full his liabilities within 60 days. (2) If a reply is given by the borrower to the notice sent under sec.13(2) raising objections, the same should be considered and if the objections are rejected, the secured creditor shall communicate to the borrower within a week of receipt of such reply the reasons for rejecting the objections. (2) If a reply is given by the borrower to the notice sent under sec.13(2) raising objections, the same should be considered and if the objections are rejected, the secured creditor shall communicate to the borrower within a week of receipt of such reply the reasons for rejecting the objections. .(3) The reasons so communicated shall not confer any right upon the borrower to challenge the communication .(4) If the borrower fails to discharge his liability within the period of 60 days, the secured creditor may proceed against the borrower by taking possession of the secured assets, taking over the management of the business of the borrower, etc. .(5) Any person aggrieved by way of the measures taken by the secured creditor, may prefer an appeal to Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) within 45 days under sec.17 of the Act. .(6) DRT under sec.17 shall consider whether the measures taken by the secured creditor are in accordance with the Act after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced by the parties. .(7) DRT should dispose of such appeal filed under sec.17 within 60 days. .(8) Any person aggrieved by any order made by the DRT may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. .(9) If the DRT holds that possession of secured assets by the secured creditor is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and directs to return such secured assets to the borrower, the borrower is entitled to payment of compensation and costs as may be determined by the tribunal. .(10) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a tribunal or the appellate tribunal is empowered under the Act to determine. (emphasis supplied) .(11) No injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken under this Act or the DRT Act (Act 51/1993) (emphasis supplied) .(12) The provisions of SARFAESI Act shall have overriding effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law." 8. (emphasis supplied) .(11) No injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken under this Act or the DRT Act (Act 51/1993) (emphasis supplied) .(12) The provisions of SARFAESI Act shall have overriding effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law." 8. In (2005) 126 Comp Cases 630, a Division Bench of this court held that where the challenge is to the notice under sec.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the same is to be rejected as a reply is to be given to such notice and if the challenge is to the action under sec.13(4), the same is also to be rejected on the ground of alternative remedy of filing an appeal under sec.17. 9. It is true that the above decision was rendered in a batch of writ petitions challenging the provisions of the Act and the actions taken by the secured creditors. But the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court will apply to suits also. 10. In 2006(4) MLJ 914 (cited supra), this court held that a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the notice issued under sec.13(2) OF SARFAESI Act is void, illegal and for permanent injunction to restrain the bank from alienating or encumbering or transferring or inducting any one into the suit properties, is barred under sec.34 of the SARFAESI Act, because the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This court rejected the plaint itself in the above decision. 11. In 2006(5) CTC 753 (cited supra), the Honble Supreme court held that Sec.35 of the SARFEASI Act gives an overriding effect to that Act with all other laws and of such other laws are inconsistent with the SARFEASI Act. The Supreme court further observed that the very object of Sec.13 of SARFEASI Act is recovery by non-adjudicatory process and it is for this reason that Sec.13(1) and 13(2) of the Act proceeds on the basis that security interest needs to be enforced expeditiously without the intervention of the court/tribunal. The SARFEASI Act states that enforcement would take place by non-adjudicatory process and the Act removes all fetters on the rights of the secured creditors. 12. The SARFEASI Act states that enforcement would take place by non-adjudicatory process and the Act removes all fetters on the rights of the secured creditors. 12. Thus, it is very clear that SARFAESI Act is a self contained code enacted for a special purpose and therefore once a notice is issued under sec.13(2), it has to proceed in the same way as contemplated under the Act and any aggrieved person against the measures taken by the bank under sec.13(4) has to approach the DRT first and the DRAT later and he cannot maintain a civil suit for the measures taken by the bank under sec.13(4) of the Act. Therefore it is to be held that suit is also specifically excluded from the purview of civil courts for the action taken or to be taken by the bank under sec.13(4) of the Act. 13. As far as the present case is concerned, it seems that the plaintiff has not even replied to the notice issued by the bank under sec.13(2) of the Act within the stipulated period of 60 days, but has approached the civil court by filing the suit for partition on 12. 2007 after the Bank issued possession Notice on 111. 2006 and subsequently Sale Notice on 11. 2007 and also obtained interim order of status quo on the date of filing of the suit itself, which is illegal and contrary to the provisions of SARFAESI Act. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the suit is not maintainable before the trial court. 14. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the judgment of this court in Arasa Kumar and another Vs. Nallammal and others, reported in 2004 (4) CTC 261 and a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Krishna Vs. Kedarnath & Ors, reported in 2006 CLC 640. 14. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the judgment of this court in Arasa Kumar and another Vs. Nallammal and others, reported in 2004 (4) CTC 261 and a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Krishna Vs. Kedarnath & Ors, reported in 2006 CLC 640. In the first decision referred to above, this court, in a similar nature of issue viz., in a suit for partition of joint family property filed impleading the Bank as the said property had been mortgaged to Bank by one coparcener, after going through the clauses with regard to exclusion/bar of civil courts jurisdiction contained in Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings Rules, 1962, and also the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, ultimately held that the bar created under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act is not absolute and the same is subject to the following three restrictions, namely- .(i) that the parties, who filed the suit must be a party to the liabilities created in favour of the secured creditor, .(ii) the disputes between the parties could be resolved under the provisions of the Act itself, (iii) that if the claim made by the parties is outside the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal or any action taken or to be taken under this Act and also under the Recovery of Debt due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the dispute raised by the parties cannot be adjudicated by an of the tribunal or authority, created under the Act or under any other Act, the right of the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief cannot be deprived and taken away. After holding so, this court observed that the suit for partition including the item in respect of which the Bank taken out proceedings to bring the same for sale, has to be proceeded with to determine the rights of the parties since the civil court alone could decide and determine the rights of the parties in respect of their respective claims in the suit for partition, the secured creditor/bank cannot bring the property for sale by invoking the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act or the bar under Section 13 of the said Act. 15. In the second decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court while partly following the decision of this court in the first decision cited supra, citing the decision of the Apex Court in Marida Chemicals Ltd., Vs. Union of India, reported in ILR 2004 Kant 2661, observed that though the jurisdiction of the Civil Court also can be invoked for limited purposes and the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act shall not come in the way of such adjudication, the secured creditor/bank is at liberty to proceed for the recovery of its amount by taking necessary steps in respect of the mortgaged properties by the debtors under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, since the very object and purpose of enacting the Act itself is for speedy recovery of the loan amount without an elaborate adjudication mechanism. 16. A comparative reading of all the decisions cited above would make it clear that as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit challenging the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the powers conferred under the said Act and the plaint filed in such suits are liable to be rejected straight away. However, such bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI shall not come in the way of adjudication of the civil rights, like declaration of title of the suit properties, partition rights in the ancestral properties etc., which are mortgaged, because such claims/rights made are outside the jurisdiction and adjudication of the Debt Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal under the said Debt Recovery Acts. However, in such suits the civil courts have no jurisdiction to grant either interim stay or interim injunction restraining the secured creditor/bank which is at liberty to proceed with the mortgaged properties for realisation of the amounts in view of the express bar contained under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, constitutional validity of such provision has been upheld by the Honble Apex Court. 17. The object and reason for the continuance of the civil suits, when action has been initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, is that civil rights of the parties are involved in such civil suits which cannot be normally curtailed by any law. 17. The object and reason for the continuance of the civil suits, when action has been initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, is that civil rights of the parties are involved in such civil suits which cannot be normally curtailed by any law. But, practically, most of the suits are filed only after initiation of the Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, either by the debtor or at his instance by third parties or his relatives with mala fide intention to delay or stall the recovery proceedings. At the same time, genuine claims or rights of the parties cannot be shut down or deprived away. It is also inevitable that ultimately, the parties who succeed in such suits, would get only their share of surplus auction amount, if any available, unless they discharge the entire loan amount, thereby avoid auction sale, reserving their right to proceed against the other sharers/co-parcener or defendants or mortgagor/third parties for recovery of the amount. In such a case, the secured creditor/bank has to retain the title deeds till the disposal of the suit. 18. In the above circumstances, the interim order passed by the trial court granting status quo, thereby restraining the revision petitioner which is a secured creditor/Bank, is set aside, as there is a specific bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. It is also made clear that the revision petitioner is at liberty to proceed with the recovery proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. At the same time, the trial court is also at liberty to proceed with the trial of the suit since the adjudication or determination of rights or claims of the parties for partition of the properties which are in the nature of civil rights cannot be curtailed and the same has to be dealt with exclusively by the Civil Courts. 19. In the result, the CRP is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is