JUDGMENT : SANJIB BANERJEE, J. 1. The petitioners are a bank which complain, in particular, of an order allowing an amendment and the further continuation of the suit against the petitioners in general. According to the petitioners, certain credit facilities were extended by the bank to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 against the mortgage of an immovable property. The petitioners say that the apposite party No. 2, the first defendant in the suit, is undisputedly the owner of the property. The opposite party No. 1, the plaintiff in the suit, has Impleaded even the bank while seeking a declaration that the opposite party No. 1 is the tenant under the opposite party No. 2 and an injunction such that the possession of the opposite party No. 1 in respect of such premises is not disturbed by either the owner or the bank. 2. On a previous appeal against the order passed on a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, a Division Bench of this Court observed that the plaint relating to a suit could not be rejected on a piecemeal basis and either the plaint had to be rejected as a whole or not at all. 3. Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has been found to be intra vires the Constitution by the Supreme Court. As a consequence of at least two judgments of the Supreme Court finding such provision to be intra vires the Constitution, some of the old concepts pertaining to the rejection of plaints may no longer be applicable. Section 34 of the said Act of 2002, in its opening limb, prohibits civil courts from entertaining matters which are capable of determination by a Debts Recovery Tribunal or an Appellate Tribunal. In its second part, such provision prohibits a civil Court from issuing any injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under such Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. 4. There is no doubt in this case that whatever may be the merits of the plaintiff-tenant's claim against the first defendant-landlord, the bank has been roped in to affect the bank's rights under the said Act of 2002. 4. There is no doubt in this case that whatever may be the merits of the plaintiff-tenant's claim against the first defendant-landlord, the bank has been roped in to affect the bank's rights under the said Act of 2002. The bank has already taken measures under Section 13 of the said Act of 2002 and the challenge thereto by the plaintiff-tenant has been dismissed by the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal, according to the bank. 5. In such a situation, the bank has challenged an order dated October 8, 2015 by which an amendment application has been allowed and the plaintiff-tenant has been permitted to include a relief for specific performance in respect of the suit property. 6. In view of the contents of the amendment application, it is observed that the relief for specific performance has not been sought against the bank. Further, the bank is left free to pursue the bank's remedies in respect of the secured asset irrespective of the pendency of the suit since no order passed by the civil Court can affect any measure taken by the bank under the said Act of 2002. CO 1642 of 2016 and CAN 6369 of 2017 are disposed of without any order as to costs.