JUDGMENT:- This appeal by defendant Bank is directed against order passed by learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.245 of 2006, restraining the Bank from enforcing liability of repayment of loan against the plaintiff and permitting the Bank to recover 50% unpaid amount in monthly installment of Rs. Fifteen Thousand each. 2. The facts, which led the Bank to file present appeal are indeed serious. Respondents No.2 to 5 had taken a loan from the appellant Bank in which they had defaulted. Respondent No.1/plaintiff in the suit, joined the said partnership after this loan was taken. The appellant Bank had secured mortgage of the properties from the borrower by registered mortgage deed. The Bank took action under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity) to recover the loan. A notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued on 25-092006. Before that the plaintiff had applied to the Bank on 13th April, 2004 that he had joined as new partner in the partnership firm and was ready to repay regularly the loan which was taken from the Bank. Inspite of this, respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration that he was not liable to pay any amount of the firm which he had joined and that the notice dated 25th September, 2006 issued by the appellant Bank was illegal, arbitrary, capricious, mala fide, collusive, clandestine, secret, fraudulent and void ab initial. He sought permanent injunction to restrain the Bank from taking possession of the property on the basis of this notice. He also filed an application Exh.5 for temporary injunction to this effect, which application was allowed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, by the impugned order. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. Notice was issued to the respondents, and the original plaintiff, contesting respondent No.1 was represented by Shri. R.D. Dharmadhikari. On 10th June, 2009 when the matter came up for final hearing for the first time none of the learned counsel for the respondents were present. Therefore, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant Bank the matter was adjourned to today in the hope that the counsel for the respondents would appear and address the Court. On 10th June, 2009 when the matter came up for final hearing for the first time none of the learned counsel for the respondents were present. Therefore, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant Bank the matter was adjourned to today in the hope that the counsel for the respondents would appear and address the Court. However, except respondents No.2 & 3 none have cared to appear even today. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken me though copies of the relevant documents which have been filed before the trial Court and also the impugned order. He submitted that though it was specifically brought to the notice of the learned trial Judge that the suit itself was not tenable in view of the provision of Section 34 of the Act, which specifically provides for appeal under Section 17 for action under Section 13 of the said Act, the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division proceeded to ignore this and slapped an injunction on the Bank restraining the Bank from recovering its legitimate dues. He pointed out that the question of ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters had already been considered by this Court in the case of appellant Bank itself in judgment in Khamgaon Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Karunashankar Ramkishore Tiwari, reported at 2007(2) ALL MR 44. He submitted that this is tragic that though judgment was also brought to the notice of the learned trial Judge by filing a copy of this judgment with list Exh.24 before him, the learned Judge proceeded to grant injunction by framing his own scheme as to how the Bank should recover this amount. Though the appellant had specifically raised objection to the jurisdiction of the Court that the question was not at all decided or considered in the impugned order. The whole approach of the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati was not only erroneous but thoroughly undesirable. The learned Judge should have been that by his order he not only prevented the Bank from recovering its legitimate dues but also subverted or overridden the provides of law which barred his jurisdiction. 5. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. 6. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.