JUDGMENT N. KUMAR, J.-This appeal is filed against the order passed by the trial Court under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC declining to grant an order of temporary injunction. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 114/2012. He is a retired public prosecutor. He has filed the suit for declaration that the alleged loan transaction between defendant No. 6 and defendant No. 2 is not binding on the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 has no right to recover the loan amount by selling 1/6th share in the suit schedule-A property to the extent of 1/6th share and consequently sought for decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 6 from selling schedule-A property to an extent of 1/6th share. 2. In the body of the plaint, it is categorically pleaded that, in respect of schedule B and C properties there was already a partition among the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and they are in possession since many years. They are enjoying the respective shares and managing the same. However, schedule-A property is the joint ancestral family property of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 5, wherein the plaintiff has got 1/6th share. The grievance is that, defendant No. 6 has moved the Deputy Commissioner to take possession of the schedule-A property under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Deputy Commissioner has passed an order invoking Section 14 of the Act. The validity of the order was challenged by the plaintiff before this Court in W.P. No. 61542/2012, which came to be disposed of on 20.03.2012 with a direction to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing an application. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed an application sofar as setting aside the order under Section 14 of the Act. The plaintiff also made an application before the Deputy Commissioner for recalling the order under Section 14 of the Act. It is in this background as the decree obtained against defendant No. 2 is not binding on the plaintiff's 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties, his 1/6th share neither can be brought to sale nor his possession could be disturbed. It is in this background as the decree obtained against defendant No. 2 is not binding on the plaintiff's 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties, his 1/6th share neither can be brought to sale nor his possession could be disturbed. Therefore, he has preferred a suit for partition of his 1/6th share and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 6 from dispossessing the plaintiff. 3. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed the written statement pointing out, the defendant No. 6 has sanctioned the loan amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- repayable at agreed rate of interest in the name of Progency Systems Pvt. Ltd. The defendant No. 2 Sri. Venkanagaouda Devanagouda Andanigoudar who is brother of plaintiff and Sri. G.I. Inamati have stood as guarantors to the said loan amount. As a security for the said loan amount, immovable property bearing CTS No. 4/6A measuring 9.43 guntas situated at Lakkamanahalli Dharwad is legally mortgaged to defendant No. 6 bank by executing a deed evidencing of deposit of title deed which is registered. The plaintiff colluding with his brothers has filed this suit just to drag the legal proceedings of recovery initiated by the bank under the said Act. The plaintiff has executed a General Power of Attorney to mortgage the said property in favour of defendant No. 6 and has kept quite all these years. Till obtaining possession orders from Dharwad District Magistrate, there is no single complaint letter from plaintiff either to the bank or Police Station or any case in respect of the said mortgage property. Since the borrowers had requested to extend the time for taking possession and allow them to settle the loan amount, defendant No. 6 had co-operated in not seizing the property. The plaintiff and his family members very well know about the execution of the mortgage of the property in favour of the bank and also very well know about execution of the Power of Attorney in favour of his brother. The case is being dragged for last 15 years. The plaintiff has issued a letter to defendant No. 6 on 11.02.2012 that bank is not responsible for family dispute and also he issued cheque of Rs. 40,00,000/- drawn on KVG Bank dated 24.07.2010 and assured to clear the loan amount. The said cheque was bounced, therefore, he has committed offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The plaintiff has issued a letter to defendant No. 6 on 11.02.2012 that bank is not responsible for family dispute and also he issued cheque of Rs. 40,00,000/- drawn on KVG Bank dated 24.07.2010 and assured to clear the loan amount. The said cheque was bounced, therefore, he has committed offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The plaintiff being the public prosecutor and also knowing fully well of a registered encumbrance created by him and his family members in favour of the bank on 04.10.1997 is creating false story of forgery of signature by his family members without showing any document of proof of action taken by plaintiff for said allegation. Defendant No. 6 being a Co-operative Bank, civil suit cannot be filed against Co-operative Bank without complying mandatory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. As the borrowed amount is not paid in spite of a decree, proceedings are initiated to recover the money by selling the property after taking possession of the property. The learned trial Judge after considering the rival contentions came to the conclusion, plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, but recorded a finding that the balance of convenience lies with defendant No. 6. There is no irreparable injury, therefore, it dismissed the application for injunction. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the impugned order contends, admittedly the plaintiff is not a party to the loan transaction. The plaintiff has 1/6th share in the schedule property. Under these circumstances, when the plaintiff has got 1/6th undivided interest in the schedule-A property that cannot be sold, as he is not due any amount to the society. Therefore, he submits, a case for temporary injunction is made out. Though Court held prima facie case is made out on the question balance of convenience injunction has been refused which is not correct. 5. From the aforesaid material, it is clear for borrowing the loan from defendant No. 6, defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for due payment of the loan and mortgaged the schedule-A property in favour of the bank. The allegation in the plaint shows plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and other family members have divided B and C schedule property and they have retained schedule-A property. The allegation in the plaint shows plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and other family members have divided B and C schedule property and they have retained schedule-A property. The pleadings also discloses that the plaintiff has executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant No. 2 to mortgage the property. Now he is trying to wriggle out of the situation by saying it is a forged document. Now the grievance is decree passed is not binding on the plaintiff, there is no partition of schedule-A property and therefore, the bank under the Act has no jurisdiction to sell 1/6th share belonging to the plaintiff as well as taking possession from him. 6. Insofar as taking possession is concerned, it is sought to be taken under the provisions of the Act, therefore, the bank has approached the jurisdictional District Magistrate who has passed the order under Section 14 of the Act and the said order is under challenge. Therefore, complaining of illegal dispossession, plaintiff cannot prefer a suit. Similarly if the liability is denied that is to be challenged under Section 17 as rightly held by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. It is in this background we have to look at Section 34 of the Act, which reads as under: "No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the 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." Therefore, the possession is sought to be taken in pursuance of an order passed under Section 14 of the Act and if the plaintiff is aggrieved by such order, the remedy is to challenge the said order which he has already done. For that purpose a suit is not maintainable. If he wants to dispute his liability, Section 17 is applicable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in declining to grant the decree of temporary injunction. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.