Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendant bank and is directed against the Order No.36 dated April 18, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldia in Title Suit No.57 of 2011 thereby rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. filed by the defendant nos.3 & 4. The question involved in the matter is whether a civil suit lies when the secured creditor takes an action against the debtor under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(henceforth shall be called as ‘SARFAESI Act’). When the secured creditor issued a notice upon the debtors for realizing the defendants, the other party cannot institute a suit and if any person has any grievance against the action of the secured creditor, the appropriate step is to prefer an application under Section 17 of the said 2002 Act. According to Section 34 of the said Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of such a matter. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. filed by the secured creditor. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 is a complete code to determine the rights and obligations between the parties. By exercise of power under Section 13(4) of the said Act, the secured creditor is entitled to take possession of the property without any intervention of the Court and if any person has any grievance against any action taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the said Act, an appropriate application lies under Section 17 of the Act to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The expression ‘any person’ in Section 17(1) includes any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14 of the Act of 2002. So, the plaintiff of the suit, in my view, also comes within the term ‘any person’. Therefore, whether the claim may be raised by the plaintiff in the suit, he comes within the category ‘any person’ as envisaged in Section 17(1) of the Act. So, the plaintiff of the suit, in my view, also comes within the term ‘any person’. Therefore, whether the claim may be raised by the plaintiff in the suit, he comes within the category ‘any person’ as envisaged in Section 17(1) of the Act. Thus, I am of the opinion that an effective remedy is available to the plaintiff under Section 17(1) of the Act of 2002 and thus, if necessary under Section 18 of the said. So the plaintiff is at liberty to exhaust the remedies that are open to him under the Act of 2002. The filing of a suit is a complete bar under the said Act. If any person has any grievance against the order passed under Section 17, a further step, i.e., an appeal (second appeal) would lie to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act of 2002. But, the said Act has prohibited the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 34 of the said Act totally. So, Section 34 of the Act of 2002 indicates that this Act has overriding effect over the other Acts or law of the land. This being the position, the learned Trial Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. My conclusion gets supported from the decision of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India & ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 2371 . Therefore, in my view, the impugned order cannot be supported at all. The learned Trial Judge has recorded that the question whether the impugned transaction is a loan in substance or not is to be decided by a civil court. This finding cannot be accepted in view of the fact that if it is accepted, then the provisions of Section 13(4), 14, 17, 18 & 34 of the said Act of 2002 would be meaningless. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. The unnecessary litigation or vexatious litigation must be nipped in the bud. The application is, therefore, allowed. The application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. filed by the secured creditor stands allowed. In consequence, the plaint stands rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.