Judgment : The only substantial question of law which is sought to be raised by the appellant/defendant in this second appeal is on maintainability of the suit in view of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, SARFAESI Act). 2) The plaintiff/respondent-State Bank of India lent money to the defendant under house building loan after obtaining necessary security. When the defendant committed default in repayment of the said debt, the plaintiff-Bank invoked provisions of SARFAESI Act and brought the security property to sale, conducted auction and realised part of the loan amount. Even after the said exercise under the SARFAESI Act, the plaintiff could not realise the total loan amount from the property given as security. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit in the trial Court for recovery of Rs.3,03,797/- with interest at 12% p.a. of Rs.2,21,035/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realisation, being the balance due under the loan account. After trial, the trial Court granted the decree and it was confirmed by the lower appellate Court on appeal by the defendant. 3) The appellant’s counsel in this second appeal contended that Section 34 of SARFAESI Act stands as a bar for entertaining the suit by the civil Court. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act reads as follows: “34. After trial, the trial Court granted the decree and it was confirmed by the lower appellate Court on appeal by the defendant. 3) The appellant’s counsel in this second appeal contended that Section 34 of SARFAESI Act stands as a bar for entertaining the suit by the civil Court. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act reads as follows: “34. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction:- No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or an Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this 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 this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (52 of 1993)” The above provision bars jurisdiction of the civil Court on two aspects, viz., (1) Suit or other proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or an appellate tribunal is empowered by or under the said Act to determine, and (2) Suit for granting injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the said Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. 4) In the case on hand the plaintiff is not seeking any injunction on the aspects relating to item No.(2) above. In so far as prohibition of entertaining a suit relating to item No.(1) is concerned, this is not a suit which can be instituted in any Debts Recovery Tribunal, as valuation of the suit is below the prescribed limit for approaching a Debts Recovery Tribunal. The plaintiff-bank filed the suit in the trial Court after exhausting all remedies available to it under the SARFAESI Act for realisation of the suit debt as on the date of filing of the suit in the trial Court. Therefore, Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act is no bar for entertaining suit of this nature by the civil Court. 5) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that except examining an officer of the Bank as P.W-1, the plaintiff did not file any proof relating to the amount due to the Bank. Therefore, Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act is no bar for entertaining suit of this nature by the civil Court. 5) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that except examining an officer of the Bank as P.W-1, the plaintiff did not file any proof relating to the amount due to the Bank. Ex.A-9 attested copy of auction proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is filed by the plaintiff. Subsequently also the plaintiff got issued Ex.A-11 notice dated 14.11.2005. The defendant did not dispute averments relating to the auction proceedings and the amount fetched in the auction, in his written statement, though the defendant sought to raise some other pleas relating to validity of the auction of the security property. What is not denied, need not be proved. In the circumstances, the Courts below rightly granted decree for balance of loan amount due against the defendant/appellant. I find no error or legal error in the decision of the Courts below muchless no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. 6) Hence, the second appeal is dismissed.