JUDGMENT 1. Both these Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner against the common order made in I.A.Nos.18174 and 18175 of 2012 in O.S.No. 2726 of 2012 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein and whereby the applications filed by the petitioner seeking for setting aside the exparte orders passed in the suit as well as in the interim injunction application, were rejected. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.2726 of 2012 herein on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai seeking for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from disturbing the plaintiff under the guise of collecting the loan amount except under due process of law. In the said suit, the petitioner herein was set ex parte on 28.11.2012 and an order of interim injunction was also granted on the same day in I.A.No. 7048 of 2012. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No. 18174 of 2012 under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC to set aside the exparte order passed on 28.11.2012 in O.S.No.2726 of 2012. Likewise, they filed I.A.No.18175 of 2012 under Order 9 Rule 7 to set aside the ex parte order passed in the said interim application. 3. The contention of the petitioner herein is that the very suit itself is not maintainable as it is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. It is further contended that the respondent herein created an equitable mortgage over the suit property in favour of the defendant Bank and he is due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.55,05,207.61 as on 9.4.2012 with future interest and charges. It is stated that the plaintiff had already filed a suit in O.S.No. 2583 of 2012 through one Anand Iyengar under the guise of tenant and since no interim order was granted in the said suit, he has filed the present suit with oblique motive. It is further stated that the defendant had already filed O.A. before DRT I, Chennai against the plaintiff and his wife for recovery of the said loan amount and the said O.A. was not defended by the respondent herein for obvious reasons. 4. It is further stated that the defendant had already filed O.A. before DRT I, Chennai against the plaintiff and his wife for recovery of the said loan amount and the said O.A. was not defended by the respondent herein for obvious reasons. 4. It is further stated at para 10 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in those applications that since the loan account of the respondent has become non-performing assets (NPA), it was transferred to Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Red Cross Building, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai in terms of internal policy of the bank and in spite of knowing the said fact the respondent had given false address in the suit and filed the proof of service before the Court, as if notice was served on the defendant bank. 5. The said applications filed by the petitioner herein were resisted by the respondent by filing a counter affidavit. The Court below after hearing both sides and considering the rival pleadings dismissed both the applications by an order dated 6.3.2013. The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed as against the common order passed by the Court below. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the very suit itself is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the Court below erred in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner. It is also submitted by him that the applications were filed only by the defendant in the said suit and only the affidavits filed in support of the applications were sworn in by the Officer of the Stressed Assets Recovery Branch and therefore, the finding of the Court below in rejecting the applications are totally erroneous. He further submitted that the Court below failed to consider that the applications were filed immediately without loss of time and therefore there is bonafide on the part of the Bank in filing the applications. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the affidavits were sworn in by the Officer, who is not the defendant in the suit and therefore the Court below has rightly rejected the applications. He also invited my attention to the finding of the Court below that the petitioner has not given any satisfactory explanation as to why they did not appear on the date of the hearing. 9. He also invited my attention to the finding of the Court below that the petitioner has not given any satisfactory explanation as to why they did not appear on the date of the hearing. 9. On going by the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the order passed by the Court below, I am of the view that the Court below has totally erred in dismissing both the applications filed by the petitioner. First of all, when the very maintainability of the suit itself is questioned by the petitioner in the said applications by specifically contending that there is a statutory bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act to entertain the said suit, I fail to understand as to how the Court below has proceeded to decide the other merits of the matter in the applications by observing that it is not proper to decide whether the suit is maintainable and is barred by the SARFAESI Act , at that stage, because Stressed Assets Recovery Branch is not the party defendant in the suit. This finding is totally unsustainable. 10. At this juncture, it is to be seen as to whether the applications were filed by the defendant in the suit or the Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, as observed by the Court below. When both the applications were perused, it could be seen that those applications were filed only by the defendant viz., State Bank of India, represented by its Authorised Officer No.4, Teacher's Colony, Indira Nagar, Chennai 20. It is true, the affidavits filed in support of such applications were sworn in by an Officer from the Stressed Assets Recovery Branch. Merely because another officer of the same Bank has filed the affidavits in support of the applications, it does not mean that the applications were filed by such officer and not by the the defendant Bank, especially when the cause title shown in the applications would indicate that the defendant alone was shown as the petitioner. When that being the factual position, I am not able to appreciate the reasoning given by the Court below that the applications were not filed by the defendant, which finding is against the fact. The Court below has chosen to reject both the applications mainly on the reason that the same were not filed by the defendant Bank. 11. When that being the factual position, I am not able to appreciate the reasoning given by the Court below that the applications were not filed by the defendant, which finding is against the fact. The Court below has chosen to reject both the applications mainly on the reason that the same were not filed by the defendant Bank. 11. Of course, the Court below has also given a finding that the petitioner did not give any satisfactory explanation as to why the Officer or the Manager of the Indira Nagar did not appear before the Court on 28.11.2012. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the affidavits sworn in by the petitioner before the court below, more particularly to paragraph 10, wherein it is explained as to why they could not appear on the particular day. The Court below has totally lost its sight to the said reasoning given by the petitioner. Absolutely there is no discussion about the said reasoning and simply the Court below has rejected the applications only on the reasons as stated supra. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (3) CTC 801 ( V.Thulasi Vs. Indian Overseas Bank) to contend that the suit is specifically barred under Section 34 of the Act. In fact, in the said decision, the plaint itself was ordered to be rejected. 13. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order of the Court below is not correct either on law or on facts and consequently, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the common order passed by the Court below in I.A.Nos.18174 and 18175 of 2012 is set aside and both the applications are allowed. 14. It is open to the petitioner to file additional pleadings before the Court below to raise the preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the suit and it is for the Court below to consider the said applications and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law without loss of any further time. 15. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the connected M.Ps.are closed. No costs.