JUDGMENT : This is a defendant's revision, challenging an order of Smt. Anupama Singh, Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Meerut rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [For short “C.P.C.”]. 2. An Original Suit No. 255 of 2018 was instituted before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Meerut by Smt. Satbiri, the plaintiff-respondent here, against Amit Jain, the defendant-respondent no. 1 and the Punjab National Bank, Branch Mangal Pandey Nagar through its Branch Manager, arrayed as the second defendant, seeking a mandatory and a prohibitory injunction, rolled up into one, to the effect that a decree be passed against defendant-respondent no. 2, the Punjab National Bank ordering the said defendant to de-seal the suit property, bearing Flat No. B-405, Fourth Floor, Ansal Township, Meerut Road, and to keep it so, until realization of the defendant-Bank's loan from defendant no. 1 and his guarantors, or until a settlement with the plaintiff. It is also a part of the relief that till such time that the defendant-Bank's loan is realized from the first defendant, or a settlement arrived at with the plaintiff, the Bank be forbidden from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit property. 3. In substance, it is the plaintiff-respondent's case that she purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 23.09.2015, executed in her favour by defendant-respondent no. 1, Amit Jain. She is the owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of the aforesaid conveyance. The plaintiff is poorly educated and hails from a rural background, on account of which, she could not understand the consequences or the impact of documents relating to the Ansal Township Company. However, before buying the suit property from defendant no. 1, she had inquired about the property from the vendor-defendant and purchased it, after scrutinizing documents relating to the suit property. Defendant-respondent no. 1, Amit Jain, was owner in possession of the suit property, situate in Ansal Town, as the documents relating to the property would show. The plaintiff purchased the suit property for a valuable sale consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/- lacs and entered into ownership possession of the same. It is the plaintiff's case that defendant-respondent no. Defendant-respondent no. 1, Amit Jain, was owner in possession of the suit property, situate in Ansal Town, as the documents relating to the property would show. The plaintiff purchased the suit property for a valuable sale consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/- lacs and entered into ownership possession of the same. It is the plaintiff's case that defendant-respondent no. 1 informed her at the time of execution of the sale deed that the sale deed in original, in his favour, is in the safe keeping of the Bank in his locker and it being a Bank holiday, she should get the sale deed executed on the assurance that the following day, defendant no. 1 would retrieve his original title deed from the bank locker and hand it over to the plaintiff. It is then pleaded that defendant no. 2, the Bank, issued a letter dated 03.08.2016 to the plaintiff, addressed to defendant no. 1, Amit Jain that brought the fact to her knowledge that the defendant-Bank had advanced a loan to defendant no. 1, and that on account of non-payment of the scheduled instalments due towards repayment of the loan, the loan account had become a non performing asset. 4. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent had secured a copy of the sale deed dated 07.08.2015 from her Developer which led her to believe that there was no encumbrance over the suit property. The plaintiff also says that after acquisition of knowledge about the bank loan, she went to the Sub-Registrar's Office at Sardhana and inquired about the loan. The Sub Registrar's Office informed her that there was no loan affecting the suit property, because defendant no. 1, Amit Jain and defendant no. 2, the Punjab National Bank are in collusion with each other, leading to non availability of information about the Bank's encumbrance in the Sub Registrar's Office. It is then pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent that on 13.09.2017, she received a notice about the Bank taking possession of the suit property. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff came to know from the defendant-Bank that defendant no. 1 had informed her about there being no encumbrance over the suit property, whereafter the plaintiff got the registered sale deed dated 23.09.2015, executed in her favour by the vendor defendant no. 1. This part of the plaintiff's pleadings are perplexing and shrouded in ambiguity. 5. 1 had informed her about there being no encumbrance over the suit property, whereafter the plaintiff got the registered sale deed dated 23.09.2015, executed in her favour by the vendor defendant no. 1. This part of the plaintiff's pleadings are perplexing and shrouded in ambiguity. 5. It is further asserted that on 09.01.2018, the defendant-Bank have put their seal over the suit property, whereas much moveables of the plaintiff, including valuables like gold ornaments and other expensive chattels, are placed there. It is asserted that this seal has been put over the suit property, of which the plaintiff is the owner in possession, without the order of a competent Court. It is also pleaded that she instituted a suit earlier against the defendant- Punjab National Bank, being Original Suit No. 613 of 2018, which carried incorrect facts and was not pursued by the plaintiff. It is not within the plaintiff's ken, whether the said suit has been dismissed in default or not. It is also the plaintiff-respondent's case that she has addressed complaints about a fraud being played upon her to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut and other higher officials, but to no avail. It is then said that the plaintiff went over to the defendant- Bank on 06.04.2018 at about 3 p.m. and demanded of them to de-seal the suit property. 6. It is asserted that the plaintiff-respondent told the second defendant that in the event of default in repayment of loan by defendant no. 1, it has to be realized from him personally or his guarantors. However, defendant no.2 asked the plaintiff to get out of the Bank premises, though at that time, the plaintiff was requesting the second defendant to permit her to reside in the suit property until a settlement of the Bank's claim, which the defendant-Bank refused. It is on the basis of these pleadings and cause of action that the relief indicated at the outset of this judgement has been claimed by the plaintiff-respondent in the suit. 7. Now, defendant-respondent no. 2, the Punjab National Bank say that the suit, from the bare allegations in the plaint, is barred by law and the plaint is fit to be rejected. 7. Now, defendant-respondent no. 2, the Punjab National Bank say that the suit, from the bare allegations in the plaint, is barred by law and the plaint is fit to be rejected. It is stated that the suit from the statement in the plaint is barred by provisions of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, [For short ‘SARFAESI Act’]. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act reads : 34. Civil court not to have jurisdiction.--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 (51 of 1993). 8. In order to enforce the said stand, the defendant respondent no. 2 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., asking the Trial Court to reject the plaint. The Trial Judge, by her order impugned, has rejected the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. 9. Aggrieved, this revision has been instituted. 10. Heard Mr. Ashok Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the revisionist. No one appears on behalf of both the respondents. 11. It must be placed on record here that all efforts to serve the respondents have proved futile. On 23.07.2019, notice pending admission was issued to them by registered post. That mode of service proved ineffectual. They have been attempted to be served by publication in the Meerut Edition of the Amar Ujala, Hindi Daily and the Financial Express, New Delhi, dated 12.11.2019. The revision was admitted to hearing on 03.02.2020. No one appeared despite publication, and by an order dated 27.07.2020, it was directed that the matter shall be heard and decided on the next date fixed. Still, when the matter came up on 05.03.2020, this Court recorded the fact that the respondents have failed to appear, despite publication, but in order to give them more opportunity, stayed proceedings of the suit, directing the revision to be listed after a month. After 05.03.2020, the revision has come up today. Still, when the matter came up on 05.03.2020, this Court recorded the fact that the respondents have failed to appear, despite publication, but in order to give them more opportunity, stayed proceedings of the suit, directing the revision to be listed after a month. After 05.03.2020, the revision has come up today. Yet again, no one appears on behalf of the respondents. 12. It was said in the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. that defendant-respondent no.1, Amit Jain made an application for sanction of a home loan to the defendant-respondent Bank on 04.08.2015, requesting a loan in the sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. The loan was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 04.08.2015 and a loan agreement, also dated 04.08.2015, was executed between the defendant-respondent Bank and defendant-respondent no.1, Amit Jain. In terms of the said loan agreement, defendant-respondent no.1 created an equitable mortgage over the suit property through a declaration of proposed equitable mortgage dated 17.08.2015. He further executed a mortgagor's letter of confirmation of equitable mortgage dated 18.08.2015 and submitted it to the bank. In addition, defendant-respondent no. 1, deposited his title deed (in original) bearing Document No. 11538 dated 07.08.2015, along with an affidavit with the respondent Bank, in order to create a valid equitable mortgage. It was asserted in the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. that the defendant-respondent Bank issued a notice to defendant no. 1 on 30.08.2016 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, granting him 60 days time to liquidate his loan-debt in full from the date of notice, failing which the Bank would be entitled to take possession of the secured asset. Since the loan debt was not liquidated, the Bank took physical possession of the suit property on 10.01.2018, in exercise of its right under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The defendant respondent Bank has also said that it is proceeding to take steps to auction the said property in order to realize its loan over dues. It was also said in the application that the plaintiff, despite an assertion in the plaint that she came to know that the property was mortgaged with the defendant-Bank, got a bogus and fraudulent sale deed executed in her favour, in order to defraud the bank by causing the secured asset to be placed out of its reach. It was also said in the application that the plaintiff, despite an assertion in the plaint that she came to know that the property was mortgaged with the defendant-Bank, got a bogus and fraudulent sale deed executed in her favour, in order to defraud the bank by causing the secured asset to be placed out of its reach. It was pleaded that the suit was clearly barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, meriting a rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the impugned order. 14. The impugned order, on a bare perusal, leaves an impression that the learned Trial Judge has gone more by the letter of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. rather than the substance of it. A suit that is barred ex facie by some provision of law ought to be scuttled at the outset. It ought not to be tried. The provisions of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. are salutary. The purpose is to fetter out frivolous litigation at the threshold or actions that are ex facie barred by law. It is true that while judging a motion under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., the Court has to go by the allegations in the plaint and must not look into the defendant's case. This principle, though well settled, cannot be stretched to unreasonable limits. What is meant by a reading of the plaint is not the assertions on their face value, but to gather the substance of the cause of action. If peeping behind a camouflage of words or clever drafting, one cannot miss an obvious statutory bar to the suit, the Court ought not to hesitate in exercising its jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. reads : 11. If peeping behind a camouflage of words or clever drafting, one cannot miss an obvious statutory bar to the suit, the Court ought not to hesitate in exercising its jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. reads : 11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9: Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. 15. A reading of the plaint as a whole does show the plaintiff to be aware of the fact, when she instituted the suit, that the suit property was mortgaged with the defendant-Bank and the Bank had taken possession of it for the purpose of realization of their loan debt. Even if one were to accept that the plaintiff was unaware of the loan availed by defendant respondent no. 1 that had become a non performing asset in the hands of the defendant-respondent Bank, or that it was held by them as a secured asset under the SARFAESI Act, when she took the property through the registered sale deed dated 23.09.2015, she was well aware about the Bank's claim arising from its unliquidated loan debt over the said property on the date when she instituted the suit. This fact is evident from a perusal of Paragraph Nos. 5, 8 and 9 of the plaint which read : 5-¼ikap½ ;g fd izfroknh ua0 2¼nks½ us ,d i= fnukad 03-08-2016¼rhu vxLr nks gtkj lkSyg½ dks izkFkhZ;k dks fn;k tks izfroknh ua0 1¼,d½ ds uke Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ;k dks tkudkjh feyh fd izfroknh ua0 1¼,d½ us izfroknh ua0 2¼nks½ ds cSad ls dtZ fy;k gqvk gS rFkk fd'r dh vnk;xh u gksus ds dkj.k [kkrk ,u0 ih0 ,0 gks x;k gS tc fd izkFkhZ;k dks bl iw.kZ dtZ dh ckcr tkudkjh izkIr ugha gqbZ FkhA 8-¼vkB½ ;g fd izkFkhZ;k dks ,d uksfVl izfroknh ua0 2¼nks½ dh vksj ls Q~ySV ij dCtk ysus ds lEcU/k es fnukad 13-09-2017¼rsjg flrEcj nks gtkj l=g½ ls izkIr gqvk FkkA 9-¼ukS½ ;g fd izkFkhZ;k dks izfroknh ua0 2¼nks½ ds ek/;e ls tkudkjh izkIr gqbZ fd izfroknh ua0 1¼,d½ us oknxzLr lEifRr ds mij dtZ u ysus dh ckr crkbZ Fkh rFkk fnukad 23-09-2015¼rsbZl flrEcj nks gtkj iUnzg½ es izkFkhZ;k us izfroknh ua0 1¼,d½ ls cSukek fy;k FkkA 10-¼nl½ ;g fd izfroknh ua0 2¼nks½ us fnukad 09-01-2018 ¼ukS tuojh nks gtkj vV~gkjg½ esa oknxzLr lEifRr viuh lhy yxkdj dCtk izkIr dj fy;k gS tc fd izkFkhZ;k dk leLr lkeku xksYM ,oa ?kjsyw lkeku Q~ySV esa vUnj cUn gS tcfd izkFkhZ;k ds fo#) fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k x;k gS izkFkhZ;k ctfj;s cSukek dkfct pyh vk jgh FkhA 16. Now, the averments in the plaint that the Bank took possession of the suit property on 09.01.2018, without the order of any Court, while all her effects and valuables are placed there, are ex facie pleadings introduced to lend to the Bank's actions, the colour of something done ultra vires or contrary to the provisions of law, so as to create some kind of a jurisdiction with the Civil Court which does not exist. Those averments are ex-facie a disguise to get around the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The bar under Section 34 of the Act last mentioned is all encompassing and excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal, [For short ‘DRT’] or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the SARFAESI Act to determine. The bar under Section 34 of the Act last mentioned is all encompassing and excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal, [For short ‘DRT’] or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the SARFAESI Act to determine. There is a specific prohibition against an injunction being granted by any Court or Authority in respect of any action taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the SARFAESI Act. The plaintiff-respondent ex facie has feigned, in a crude way, her ignorance about the statutory authority with the Authorized Officer of the defendant-respondent Bank to take action under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. She has clearly mentioned a notice received by her on 13.09.2017 from the Bank regarding taking possession of the suit property. It is almost naive on the part of the Trial Judge to believe that the plaintiff, with the assistance of legal counsel, would not know that it was a statutory notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, and that possession of the suit property, later on taken, would be a measure under Section 13(4). The measure taken by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) is appealable to the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. This being so, the bar under Section 34 firmly applies. 17. The learned Trial Judge, not understanding the obvious staring at the Court's face behind the camouflage of averments, designed to invest the Civil Court with jurisdiction, in the opinion of this Court, is a gross failure to exercise jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. A reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh vs. Heeralal and others, (2014) 1 SCC 479 . The Trial Judge in that case, no doubt, had framed an issue about the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in view of the provisions of Section 34 and 35 of the SARFAESI Act, but had ultimately proceeded to accept the Bank's application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. The High Court reversed the order on ground that the plaintiffs were members of a Hindu joint family and it had been pleaded by them that the suit property had been acquired drawing on the joint family nucleus. It was held that the plaintiff's case being that the suit property was property of the Hindu Joint Family and not exclusive property of the Bank's debtor, it cannot be said that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while setting aside the High Court's judgement, did a survey of the provisions of Section 2(zf), 2(zc) and 2(zd), 13, 17 and 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 and United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 were considered. It was then held in Jagdish Singh, thus : 24. Statutory interest is being created in favour of the secured creditor on the secured assets and when the secured creditor proposes to proceed against the secured assets, sub-section (4) of Section 13 envisages various measures to secure the borrower's debt. One of the measures provided by the statute is to take possession of secured assets of the borrowers, including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or realising the secured assets. Any person aggrieved by any of the "measures" referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 has got a statutory right of appeal to the DRT under Section 17. The opening portion of Section 34 clearly states that no civil court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding "in respect of any matter" which a DRT or an Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Securitisation Act to determine. The expression "in respect of any matter" referred to in Section 34 would take in the "measures" provided under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act. Consequently, if any aggrieved person has got any grievance against any "measures" taken by the borrower under sub-section (4) of Section 13, the remedy open to him is to approach the DRT or the Appellate Tribunal and not the civil court. The civil court in such circumstances has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of those matters which fall under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act because those matters fell within the jurisdiction of the DRT and the Appellate Tribunal. The civil court in such circumstances has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of those matters which fall under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act because those matters fell within the jurisdiction of the DRT and the Appellate Tribunal. Further, Section 35 says, the Securitisation Act overrides other laws, if they are inconsistent with the provisions of that Act, which takes in Section 9 CPC as well. 18. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of opinion that the learned Civil Judge, Fast Track Court has utterly failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in her, and by her order impugned, has allowed a suit to proceed that is clearly barred by law. 19. In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated May the 3rd, 2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Fast Track Court, Meerut is set aside and reversed. The application preferred by the revisionist under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. is allowed and the plaint stands rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. Let this order be communicated to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Meerut through the District Judge, Meerut by the Registrar (Compliance).