JUDGMENT : Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this first appeal calling in question the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-12), Bengaluru, in O.S.No.7993/2000 on preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit and I.A.No.7 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’). 2. For the purpose of convenience, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. PLAINT 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has filed suit against defendants for seeking declaratory relief to declare that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and cannot be auctioned in pursuance of auction notice dated 13.11.2000 bearing No.K.R.H.S./STU/370:98-99 for the alleged debts due by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant. It is stated that total area of the suit property is 4004 sq.mtrs. and its value is more than Rs.8 crore and after realizing loan amount due to the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant be directed to refund the balance amount of more than Rs.7 crore to the plaintiff and also sought for permanent injunction restraining defendants, their men, officials and agents from proceeding to auction schedule property in pursuance of the notification dated 13.11.2000. 4. It is stated that plaintiff is owner of the property by virtue of final decree passed in O.S.No.7336/1997 dated 30.09.1997 filed by plaintiff and her mother against her father for partition and separate possession of their share in the joint family properties and the suit came to be decreed on 21.08.1999 and suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff on 21.08.1999 and prior to that, the plaintiff and her mother had filed O.S.No.74/1996 on the file of the Family Court, Bengaluru city on 30.05.1996 for maintenance of a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, by virtue of the decree, plaintiff has got her names entered as the ‘khatedar’ in respect of schedule property in the records on Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike and she is paying taxes regularly. When this being the fact, 1st defendant has proceeded to auction of the suit property in pursuance of alleged arrears due to it by the 2nd defendant in which the father of plaintiff is also one of the partner on the basis that the schedule property was given as security to the said loan. When this being the fact, 1st defendant has proceeded to auction of the suit property in pursuance of alleged arrears due to it by the 2nd defendant in which the father of plaintiff is also one of the partner on the basis that the schedule property was given as security to the said loan. Since the 2nd defendant has not repaid the loan and suit property was put to auction on the guise that it was given as security for the loan obtained by the 2nd defendant though the said property is not given as security to the 1st defendant, therefore, it is contended that auction notice issued by the 1st defendant is not correct. Hence, the plaintiff has issued legal notice to the 1st defendant. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff being owner of the suit property and the suit property was not given as security to the loan obtained by the 2nd defendant from the 1st defendant and thus, the proceedings to conduct auction of schedule property is not correct, therefore, filed suit for declaration that the action of the 1st defendant of putting the suit property in auction is illegal and accordingly filed suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. 5. The suit against 2nd defendant is dismissed as steps were not taken. WRITTEN STATEMENT 6. The 1st defendant-KSFC has filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable as remedy for the 1st defendant is not by filing suit but invoking the provisions of Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 (for short, ‘the KPMRD Act 1979’) and under the provisions of The Karnataka State Financial Corporation Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the KSFC Act’). This pleading of the 1st defendant that the 2nd defendant is a partnership firm and father of plaintiff is one of the partners and suit property was given as security to the loan taken by the 2nd defendant and therefore, the 2nd defendant has become defaulter in payment of loan, therefore, the 1st defendant initiated process of realization of amount by putting suit property in auction as per provisions of KPMRD Act 1979 and KSFC Act. Accordingly, the 1st defendant has taken factory of the 2nd defendant and assets of Firm were sold and even after said amount was adjusted towards the due but still the 2nd defendant is in a balance of Rs.64,66,819/- due as on 10.03.1999. Therefore, accordingly, initiated proceedings under the provisions of KPMRD Act 1979. Therefore, in the said proceedings, the suit property which was belonging to the father of the plaintiff was attached by the Special Tahasildar on 06.07.1999 but the father of the defendants did not raise any objection to the said attachment. But another partner by name Bhagwandas filed writ petition in the name of the Firm challenging the attachment but the said writ petition came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Further, the 1st defendant denied the plaintiff is owner of suit property and the suit property is joint family property of plaintiff and her mother. Since the 1st defendant was not made as party in the suit filed by the plaintiff earlier, therefore, the judgment and decree passed in the said suit is not binding on the 1st defendant. Further, the plaintiff has a remedy to invoke provisions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the KLR Act 1964’) and not filing the suit, therefore, when the Special Tahasildar has passed order of attachment under the provisions of KPMRD Act 1979, then, filing of suit is not maintainable. Therefore, pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiff is misconceived one. 7. Further, defendant No.1 has filed additional written statement by stating that Plot No.17, KIADB Industrial Area, measuring 4004 sq.mtrs and building has been sold for Rs.8 lakhs and plant & machinery for Rs.2.05 lakhs, and after adjusting the same, still the 2nd defendant is owing balance of Rs.64,66,819/- as on 10.03.1999. Therefore, the 1st defendant has initiated proceedings to recover the said amount and thus suit filed for obstructing recovery process is not maintainable. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. PRLIMINARY ISSUE FRAMED 8. During pendency of the suit, the trial Court has framed the preliminary issue which is as follows: “Whether the suit is maintainable under the provisions of KSFC Act and Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 and the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Financial institutions Act 1993?” 9. PRLIMINARY ISSUE FRAMED 8. During pendency of the suit, the trial Court has framed the preliminary issue which is as follows: “Whether the suit is maintainable under the provisions of KSFC Act and Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 and the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Financial institutions Act 1993?” 9. Further, the 1st defendant has filed I.A.No.7 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC praying rejection of plaint as not maintainable. The trial Court has heard argument on the preliminary issue above stated and on I.A.No.7 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC has held that suit is not maintainable, also by allowing I.A.No.7 the plaint is rejected. 10. Being aggrieved by it, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. GROUNDS IN APPEAL 11. The appellant/plaintiff has raised various grounds in the memorandum of appeal, which are as follows; that the order of rejecting plaint and coming to conclusion that suit is not maintainable, are not correct. 12. It is alleged against the Presiding Officer of the trial Court that the plaintiff was asked to file memo to pass Order only on I.A.No.7 but later on forced the advocate to change original memo by mentioning that the order may be passed both on I.A.No.7 and on preliminary issue and therefore dismissed the suit as not maintainable and also by rejecting the plaint. It is further alleged that there is no hearing on preliminary issue but without hearing the suit, dismissed the suit. 13. It is also raised ground that as per Section 9 of CPC, the suit is very well maintainable that the defendant No.1-KSFC can proceed against Companies, Associations and Institutions, but not against individuals. 14. Further raised ground that, before proceeding against defendant No.2-Firm, show cause notice ought to have been issued to defendant No.2-Firm and its promoters but without doing so proceeded unilaterally. Further, raised ground that the plaintiff is nothing to do with the transaction between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, but action taken by defendant No.1 is severely affecting plaintiff, since plaintiff is owner of property, therefore prays to set aside the order passed by the trial Court and allow the appeal and remand the case to the trial Court for adjudication. SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF 15. SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF 15. Learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff submitted that the suit is very well maintainable as the right of plaintiff is affected by the action taken by defendant No.1 through Special Tahasildar. The plaintiff is owner of the property and defendant No.1 is having grievance against defendant No.2 - Firm but the action taken by defendant No.1 through Special Tahasildar has affected right of plaintiff as plaintiff is owner of the property. Therefore, in this regard, questioning highhanded action of defendant No.1-KSFC, suit is filed, but trial Court has erroneously passed order rejecting plaint as well as held that suit is not maintainable. 16. It is further submitted that, trial Court has framed issues and set down the case for trial and plaintiff is examined as PW1, therefore, when the case is set down for trial and plaintiff has examined PW1, then the plaint could not have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC rather allowed to continue the suit for trial. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that after framing issues, the trial Court ought to have been proceeded with the trial but ought not to have scuttled down suit proceedings on the guise of rejecting the plaint. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and remand the case to the trial Court for adjudication from the stage of continuation of plaintiff’s evidence. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff relied upon the following decisions: i. G. Hafeez & Ors.Vs.K.Asif & Ors. (2010 (5) KLJ 607) ii. Sudhir G. Angur & Ors. Vs.M.Sanjeev & Ors. (2005 AIR SCW 5916) iii. Ramesh B Desai & Ors Vs.Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors (2006 AIR SCW 3768) SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENT-KSFC 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-KSFC submitted that the trial Court is correct in dismissing the suit as not maintainable and also rejected the plaint. It is submitted that suit filed is collusive in nature between plaintiff and defendant No.2. One of the promoters of defendant No.2-Firm is father of plaintiff. The defendant No.2-Firm has become defaulter, therefore, father of the plaintiff instigated plaintiff to file suit for partition. It is submitted that suit filed is collusive in nature between plaintiff and defendant No.2. One of the promoters of defendant No.2-Firm is father of plaintiff. The defendant No.2-Firm has become defaulter, therefore, father of the plaintiff instigated plaintiff to file suit for partition. The suit filed by plaintiff and her mother previously in O.S.No.7336/1997 though decreed, has been passed in favour of plaintiff, but in that suit, defendant No.1-KSFC was not party, therefore, the judgement and decree in O.S.No.7336/1997 is not binding on the defendant No.1- KSFC, but defendant No.2-Firm has given the suit properties as security for loan availed from defendant No.1-KSFC and since defendant No.2-Firm has become defaulter, therefore defendant No.1-KSFC has rightly taken action through Special Tahasildar putting property into auction and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. If plaintive has any remedy, that is not by filing suit, but that is by invoking Karnataka State Financial Corporation Act and/or as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and/or as per the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979. Further, submitted that the Special Tahasildar has initiated action by passing order and if the plaintiff has any grievance, then plaintiff has to file appeal as per the provisions under the KLR Act 1964, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 19. Further, submitted that plaintiff has filed suit and filed application for grant of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC and it was dismissed. But has challenged the said order before this Court in MFA No.4840/2000 and this Court by passing order on 10.03.2005 has observed that plaintiff had remedy to resist claim under KSFC Act, but not by filing suit. Therefore, this Court in the very same suit, in MFA No.4840/2000 (supra), has held that the plaintiff remedy is to resist claim under the KSFC Act and is not entitled to file suit, therefore, trial Court is correct in dismissing the suit as above discussed. Hence prays to dismiss the appeal. 20. Upon hearing the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties at the bar, the following points arise for consideration: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, when recovery proceedings is initiated under the Karnataka State Financial Corporation Act and the Special Tahsildar has issued notice, whether a suit is maintainable under Section 9 of CPC? ii. ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit as not maintainable? and iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the order passed rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is erroneous? REASONS 21. The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration seeking declaratory decree that suit property belongs to the plaintiff cannot be auctioned in the auction dated 13.11.2000 in No.KRHS/STU:370:98-99 in the alleged debts due by the defendant No.2-Firm. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is owner of the property by virtue of final decree passed in O.S.No.7336/1997 dated 30.09.1997. The said suit is filed for partition and it was decreed and by virtue of the said decree, the plaintiff has become owner. It is also not disputed that one of the promoter of defendant No.2-Firm is father of plaintiff by name Shamlal Dayaram. It is also not disputed that defendant No.2-Firm has given the suit schedule property as security to the loan transaction between defendant No.1-KSFC and defendant No.2-Firm. The defendant No.2-Firm has become defaulter. Therefore, defendant No.1-KSFC has initiated proceedings for recovery of loan amount by putting schedule property for auction through Special Tahasildar assigned in this regard. This action of the Special Tahasildar is challenged in the suit. The question is whether suit in this regard is maintainable. 22. The plaintiff has filed suit and also filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC praying for an order of temporary injunction but it was dismissed. Challenging the same, plaintiff has filed appeal in MFA No.4840/2000 before this Court and this Court on 10.03.2005 has ordered in paragraph 2 and is extracted as follows: “2. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction and inter-alia sought temporary injunction. The trial Court has dismissed the application filed for temporary injunction on the ground that the suit is not maintainable. The Section 31 and 32 of the KSFC Act permits recovery of dues as Land Revenue arrears by proceeding against the properties of the borrowers. The first respondent has initiated action under the Karnataka Public Money Recovery Dues Act, 1979. The appellant has remedy to resist the claim under the very same Act and is not entitled to file a suit. The finding of the trial Court is sound and proper. The first respondent has initiated action under the Karnataka Public Money Recovery Dues Act, 1979. The appellant has remedy to resist the claim under the very same Act and is not entitled to file a suit. The finding of the trial Court is sound and proper. No merit in the appeal. Accordingly, dismissed.” 23. Therefore, the remedy lies for the plaintiff is either in invoking KSFC Act or the KPMRD Act, 1979 or both. 24. Further, Section 3(1)(a) of Karnataka Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 reads as follows: “3. Recovery of certain dues as arrears of land revenue.- (1) Where any person is party- (a) to any agreement relating to a loan, advance or grant given to him or relating to credit in respect of, or relating to hire-purchase of goods sold to him by the State Government or the Corporation, by way of financial assistance.” 25. Section 32(G) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, reads as follows: “Recovery of amounts due to the Financial Corporation as an arrer of land revenue.- Where any amount is due to the Financial Corporation in respect of any accommodation granted by it to any industrial concern, the Financial Corporation or any person authorised by it in writing in this behalf, may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to it, and if the State Government or such authority, as that Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied, after following such procedure as may be prescribed, that any amount is so due, it may issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.” 26. Therefore defendants No.1-KSFC, has initiated proceedings against defendant No.2-Firm. The plaintiff may be owner of the suit schedule property, but her father as a promoter of defendant No.2-Firm, has given the said property as security to the loan transaction. Therefore, by virtue of statutory powers vested to the defendant No.1- KSFC, has initiated proceedings against the property by putting into it auction, is completely as per law. The plaintiff could not obstruct the said proceedings initiated by defendant No.1-KSFC through Special Tahasildar assigned to it in this regard, by filing suit as filing suit is impliedly barred under Section 9 of CPC. The plaintiff could not obstruct the said proceedings initiated by defendant No.1-KSFC through Special Tahasildar assigned to it in this regard, by filing suit as filing suit is impliedly barred under Section 9 of CPC. 27. Further Special Tahasildar has initiated proceedings and if the plaintiff is aggrieved by it, then, he has remedy to question it by filling appeal as per the provisions Under the KLR Act 1964. Therefore, the suit filed by plaintiff is barred under Section 9 of CPC. 28. Further, rulings relied on by the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, are not applicable as the factual matrix therein are entirely different from the present case. Therefore, the plaintiff is unsuccessful in taking benefit of decisions thereon so as to be applicable in the present case. 29. Therefore, the appeal filed by the plaintiff is found to be devoid of merits. Hence, trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit as not maintainable, also by rejecting plaint as per Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1 and 3 in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER i) This regular first appeal is dismissed. ii) The order and decree dated 20.09.2021 passed by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-12), Bengaluru, in O.S.No.7993/2000 on preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit and I.A.No.7 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, is hereby confirmed. iii) No order as to costs.