ORDER : (B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.) 1. This revision is filed challenging the order dated 23.11.2017 in IA No. 3798 of 2015 in OS No. 699 of 2015 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, where under the plaint was returned to be presented, before the appropriate forum.: 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under : (a) The petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent No. 1/defendant, their men, agents etc., from interfering with physical possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property - a residential flat in Jubilee Hills. It was claimed by the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit property having purchased the same under the agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 20.11.2012 vide registered document bearing No. 4967 of 2012 from its previous and possessor, G. Sudhakar Rao; on 04.09.2015, the plaintiff received notice dated 31.08.2015 bearing Ref. No. SAR/Loan A/c. No. 391030494 addressed by the defendant to Sudhakar Gagadam and his wife Mrs. Kamala Gagadam for taking possession of the suit property; the defendant is very much aware that the suit property is in possession of the plaintiff; the plaintiff approached the defendant's office at Basheerbagh and shown all the title documents. (b) That the contents of the defendant's notice dated 30.08.2015 shows that there is an outstanding amount of Rs. Kamala Gagadam for taking possession of the suit property; the defendant is very much aware that the suit property is in possession of the plaintiff; the plaintiff approached the defendant's office at Basheerbagh and shown all the title documents. (b) That the contents of the defendant's notice dated 30.08.2015 shows that there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 18,89,641/- due from Gagadam Sudhakar and Gagadam Kamala; the defendant has already issued demand notice but there was no compliance of such demand, therefore, the defendant is proposing to take action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') for taking possession of the suit schedule property from the said persons; the threat of the defendant is illegal since all the originals of title deeds and link documents pertaining to the suit property are in possession of the plaintiff; there is no registered mortgage deed or deposit of title deed as evident from the encumbrance certificate in respect of the suit property by G. Sudhakar Rao and his wife; the law is settled that unless and until the defendant has secured the loan amount under either the registered Deed of Deposit of Title Deeds or the registered mortgage deed, the defendant cannot interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff under the guise of initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act; legal notice dated 06.09.2015 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant to furnish the documents pertaining to loan transaction cautioning the defendant not to resort further illegalities to interfere with the suit property; there is every possibility of the defendant colluding with G. Sudhakar and G. Kamala and may interrupt and interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. (c) The application in LA No. 3978 of 2015 was filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, inter alia, stating that G. Sudhakar Rao and G. Kamala approached the defendant in the month of March, 2005 seeking financial assistance for construction; they informed the defendant that they are the owners and possessors of the 852 Sq.yards, situated in Premises No. 8-2-203/82/J/-III/391/C, in Plot No. 391-C-III, Road No. 81, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, under a registered document; G. Sudhakar informed that he is carrying on construction of Anishritha Residency Complex and it is on the verge of completion; they are falling short of funds and requested for loan of Rs. 40,00,000/- to complete the project; on being satisfied with the credibility, the defendant sanctioned and disbursed the financial assistance of Rs. 25,00,000/-; the required loan documents were executed by the said persons as applicant and co-applicant on 18.03.2005; the above referred property was offered as security for availing loan, thereby, creating mortgage on the area specified in the schedule thereof; G. Sudhakar Rao and G. Kamala defaulted in payment of loan having paid some installments; the loan was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA); the loan was recalled under notice dated 06.05.2015 demanding payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 18,89,641/- as on 30.04.2015; the notice sent to the above said persons was returned on 08.05.2015 with an endorsement "addressee left". 18,89,641/- as on 30.04.2015; the notice sent to the above said persons was returned on 08.05.2015 with an endorsement "addressee left". (d) The defendant stated that the demand notice was issued to G. Sudhakar Rao and G. Kamala under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act vide notice dated 18.05.2015 calling upon them to pay the outstanding amount together with interest at 18% per annum; the notice was returned with endorsement "No Such Person" and "Addressee Left"; as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the defendant published the aforesaid Section 13(2) demand notice in two newspapers on 03.06.2015; as the loanee and the guarantor failed to pay the outstanding amount, notice dated 31.08.2015 was issued to take possession of the secured asset; since the suit property was offered as security by way of equitable mortgage to the defendant, the agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 21.08.2012 executed in favour of the plaintiff is void; the alleged sale, if any, cannot take away the right of the defendant in exercising its rights against the secured asset, which is the suit property; the suit is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, as the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff is subsequent to the creation of equitable mortgage in favour of the defendant; if the plaintiff has any grievance against the measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act, he ought to have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal; a Civil Court does not have jurisdiction as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. (e) In the counter of the petitioner/plaintiff, it is stated that the defendant colluded with the alleged borrowers; the averments in the affidavit have been denied in toto; there are manipulative corrosions in the loan agreement; as per Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, institutions which are notified by the Government by official gazette are only entitled to accept equitable mortgages; there is no such notification in favour of the; defendant; therefore, the mortgage claimed to have been created in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant is non-est in the eye of law; the; ingredients under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are not satisfied; assuming that the defendant is taking shelter under sub-rule (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC, the defendant has not satisfied the ingredients therein, as the defendant has not pleaded or made any such statement that the suit is barred under law (SARFAESI Act). 3. By the impugned order, the Court below allowed the application in LA No. 3798 of 2015 and returned the plaint to be presented before the proper forum. The Court below has recorded a finding that the suit property was mortgaged by the vendors of the plaintiff. The plaintiff entered into agreement of sale in respect of the property already mortgaged. As per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated by the defendant. 4. Mr. B. Shashidhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the application under the impugned order; the Court below while adjudicating the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has to only look into the plaint averments and cannot take into consideration the defence of the defendant; the [finding of the Court below that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act is erroneous as equitable mortgage, allegedly, created does not meet the requirement of Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act; such equitable mortgage can be created only by a nationalized bank, the respondent is not a nationalized bank. 5. Per contra, Mr. B. Ravinder Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the remedy available to the petitioner is under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 5. Per contra, Mr. B. Ravinder Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the remedy available to the petitioner is under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. There is a bar for entertaining the suit under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh v. Heeralal, 2014 (1) ALD 46 (SC) : (2014) 1 SCC 479 and a decision of this Court in Axis Bank v. Kothapeta Settibalija Ramamandiram Committee, 2015 (1) ALT 371 (DB). 6. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit cannot be rejected at the preliminary stage and Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is not a remedy for the petitioner as he is a third party to the loan transaction. 7. It is borne out of the record that notice dated 30.08.2015 was issued by the respondent to the vendors of the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of the suit property. The said notice refers to the earlier demand notice dated 18.05.2015 issued by the Authorized Officer of the respondent to the borrowers under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for paying the outstanding amount within a period of 60 days; that they neglected to discharge their liability even after expiry of 60 days, as such, the Authorized Officer has no option but to take further action by way of enforcement of securities by taking possession and selling the secured asset. The possession of the suit property will be taken over on 10.09.2018 or any date thereafter. The documents filed by the respondent alongwith the interlocutory application prove the fact that the vendors of the petitioner have availed the loan from the defendant by mortgaging the suit property. The original title deeds and link documents have been deposited by the borrowers with the defendant. Thus, equitable mortgage is created with the defendant for securing the loan. Once the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act have been initiated by the respondent, the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act operates. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act is extracted below: 34. Thus, equitable mortgage is created with the defendant for securing the loan. Once the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act have been initiated by the respondent, the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act operates. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act is extracted below: 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 view of the clear bar under the above provision, the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit. The SARFAESI Act is a special Statute created for ensuring speedy recovery of debt amounts by the banks. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act, 1993) was enacted to create separate Tribunals for speedy recovery of dues of the banks and financial institutions. Inspite of separate Tribunals being constituted under the Act, 1993, it was found that recovery process was getting delayed due to cumbersome procedures involved. In pursuit thereof, the SARFAESI Act was enacted to give more impetus to the speedy recovery of loans by the banks. A mechanism was provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to challenge the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. 9. The petitioner is a transferee of a mortgaged property under agreement of sale-cum-GPA. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by any action initiated by the respondent under the SARFAESI Act, the remedy is only under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, as there is a clear bar for Civil Court to entertain the suits under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The claim of the petitioner that equitable mortgage could not have been created, as the respondent is not a nationalized bank and that there is collusion between the respondent and the borrowers, is a matter to be decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The claim of the petitioner that equitable mortgage could not have been created, as the respondent is not a nationalized bank and that there is collusion between the respondent and the borrowers, is a matter to be decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Even though there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent, there is no option for the petitioner but to approach the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for redressal of any grievance whatsoever he has in connection with the proceedings arising out of the SARFAESI Act. This point is already answered by the Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh's case (supra) and the ratio laid therein was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Kothapeta Settibalija Ramamandiram Committee's case (supra). 10. The Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh's case (supra) held as under: "18. Any person aggrieved by any order made by the DRT under Section 17 may also prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act. 19. The expression 'any person' used in Section 17 is of wide import and takes within its fold not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by action taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Satyavati Tondon's case, (2010) 8 SCC 110 . 20. Therefore, the expression 'any person' referred to in Section 17 would take in the plaintiffs in the suit as well. Therefore, irrespective of the question whether the civil suit is maintainable or pot, under the Securitisation Act itself, a remedy is provided to such persons so that they can invoke the provisions of Section 17 of the Securitisation Act, in case the bank (secured creditor) adopt any measure including the sale of the secured assets, on which the plaintiffs claim interest." Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction is without any merit. 11. 11. Though there is no: specific averment in the plaint that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act have been initiated, since admittedly notice dated 31.08.2015 has been issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the Civil Court is empowered to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, on being satisfied that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. A statement in the plaint would not mean that there has to be an admission by the plaintiff or there should a specific statement as such to be made by the plaintiff. It is not an uncommon practice for a legal brain to make a clever drafting to escape the rigours of the provision under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. It is stated in the plaint that possession notice dated 31.08.2015 (under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act) was issued and the copy of the notice is filed alongwith the plaint documents. In fact, in the plaint cause of action it is specifically stated that the defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiffs possession pursuant to notice dated 30.08.2015. The documents filed alongwith the plant will have to be treated as part and parcel of the plaint and can be looked into by the Trial Court while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 12. The Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Banusali (Gajra), 2020 (5) ALD 17 (SC) : 2020 (4) ALT 295 (SC), held as follows: "12.3 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint [Liverpool and London S.P. and I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and another, (2004) 8 SCC 512], read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. 12.4 Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under : Order 7 Rule 14: Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies. (1)... (2)... 12.4 Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under : Order 7 Rule 14: Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies. (1)... (2)... (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory." (Emphasis supplied). Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed alongwith the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint. 13. The phraseology "suit appears from the statement in the plaint" under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC denotes that if the Court on reading the contents of the entire plaint forms an opinion that the plaint is barred under any law, the Court is within its jurisdiction to reject the plaint. In the present case, as evident from the plaint pleadings, the petitioner has cleverly avoided to refer to any proceedings initiated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act; that would not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and does not have to look into the documents annexed to the plaint. Admittedly, the notice dated 31.08.2015 was issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, the Court below has rightly held that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act have been initiated and there is a bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. Further, it appears that the Court below invoked its jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC and returned the plaint to be presented before the proper forum. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner is left without any remedy. For that matter, even the relief of injunction or any other prohibitory relief can be sought for by the petitioner before the DRT. 14. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner is left without any remedy. For that matter, even the relief of injunction or any other prohibitory relief can be sought for by the petitioner before the DRT. 14. In view of the above observations, the civil revision petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. However, any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion, in the event the petitioner approaches the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The claim of the petitioner shall be entertained without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.