JUDGMENT : MIR ALFAZ ALI, J. 1. Heard Mr. PK Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. PC Goswami, learned counsel for die respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.4.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup (M) dismissing the Misc (J) Case No.36/ 2017 arising out of Title Suit No. 17 of 2016 and thereby refusing to grant temporary injunction. The appellant as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 17 of 2016 and also filed a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking for temporary injunction, which was registered as Misc (J) Case No. 36 of 2017. The appellant-petitioner sought for temporary injunction restraining the respondents their servants, agents, employees, workmen, associates from disturbing the plaintiff in his peaceful use and occupation of the suit property. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit as well as the injunction petition was filed challenging certain action taken by the creditor on the ground of commission of fraud. But the learned trial Court dismissed the injunction petition straight away holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction over the matter. 4. Learned counsel relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Bhopal Thapa v. Smti Bina Boro & others, reported in (2015) 1 GLR 340 [2015 (1) GLJ 325] submits that the disputed fact of fraud cannot be decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the civil Court and in the present case, the petitioner has raised question of fraud having been committed by the creditor and the trial Court without applying judicial mind on the facts relating to the fraud alleged in the petition, rejected the petition with the observation that the civil Court has no jurisdiction. 5. The Hon'ble High Court in Bhopal Thapa (supra) holds as under: "20. Now, the next question arises as to whether such disputed facts on fraud can be decided by Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Can a DRT pass decree holding that there is fraud even if best of the evidence is adduced in support of the specific pleadings of fraud under Order 6, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? Can it pass anything more than issuing a recovery certificate ? Can a DRT pass decree holding that there is fraud even if best of the evidence is adduced in support of the specific pleadings of fraud under Order 6, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? Can it pass anything more than issuing a recovery certificate ? All these questions came up for considerations before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, (2009) 8 SCC 646 and it is held that DRT is a Tribunal constituted for a specific purpose and no independent issue can be initiated before it by a debtor. It cannot pass a decree. It can only pass recovery certificates. In the present case there shall be oral and documentary evidence by both sides to prove and disprove respective allegations on fraud going much beyond the books of accounts and banking notes and this would warrant interrogatories as well as examinations and cross-examinations of witnesses. Considering the nature, scope, power and jurisdiction of the DRT as revealed in the discussions of the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd (supra), it does not appear that allegations of the nature mentioned in the plaint under question, can be decided by a DRT. It can be done by the civil Court only." 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter may be remanded back to the learned trial Court for hearing afresh and to decide the question of prima facie case on the basis of the facts and issue involved in the litigation. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. Blue Jaggers Estates Ltd & others, reported in 2010 Legal Eagle (SC) 571 as well as in the decision of the United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & others, reported in 2010 Legal Eagle (SC) 505, that civil Court has no jurisdiction on the matter in view of the expressed provision of sections 34 and 17 of the SURFASI Act and therefore, the learned Court has rightly dismissed the petition for injunction. 8. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the pleadings, I find that the petition for temporary injunction, which has been filed along with the suit was basically on the basis of the allegation of fraud. 8. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the pleadings, I find that the petition for temporary injunction, which has been filed along with the suit was basically on the basis of the allegation of fraud. But while deciding the prima facie case, the learned trial Court failed to render its decision in respect of the prima facie case on the alleged facts or disputes of the parties involved in the case i.e. the matter of the fraud. The trial Court has rejected the petition holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. No doubt, in respect of the matters covered by the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which the DRT is empowered to adjudicate, the civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted. However, the DRT constituted for specific purpose shall not have the jurisdiction to decide the question of fraud which can be decided only by a civil Court. 9. The impugned order transpires that the trial Court has not dealt with the disputes raised by the appellants, particularly, relating to fraud and dismissed the petition only on the ground of jurisdiction as contemplated in section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, and in that view of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for remanding the matter for a fresh hearing, to which learned counsel for the respondent has not put up a strong resistance. Let the matter be remitted back to the trial Court for deciding the matter of injunction afresh giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard. 10. With the above observation, the impugned order is set aside. The matter be remitted back to the trial Court. Both the parties shall appear before the trial Court on 6.6.2017 and the learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter on the same day, if feasible. 11. Till then, the status quo in respect of the suit shall be maintained. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.