Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS DJ 668/25
RAJ KUMAR Vs. M/S. FINOVA CAPITAL P. LTD.
03.08.2026
Present: Sh. Gaurav, Ld. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Raghav Raghavendra, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
Matter is fixed for orders on the application of the
defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC r/w S. 34 SARFAESI
Act for rejection of the plaint. Detailed arguments have already
been addressed by the counsels for both the parties.
ORDER
1. The defendant in his application has taken the plea that
the suit is barred u/s 34 SARFAESI Act; it is beyond the territorial
jurisdiction as the suit property is situated in Loni, Gaziabad, UP ;
it is without any cause of action; the plaintiff has not valued the suit
properly for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. It is prayed
that the plaint be rejected.
2. In the reply, it is stated by the plaintiff that he has sought
the recovery of the amount. The part of cause of action has arisen
within the jurisdiction of the present court as the amount which
was transferred to the defendant was from the account of the
plaintiff maintained with the bank at Shakti Nagar Extension,
which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the present court. It is
-- 1 of 4 --
further submitted that the suit is not barred under S. 34 SARFAESI
Act as the plaintiff has alleged fraud by the defendant. It is
submitted that the defendant had executed the documents of the
property which was not in existence. It is further submitted that the
plaintiff has affixed the sufficient court fees on the relief of
recovery as prayed for. It is prayed that the application be
dismissed.
3. Heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the
complete record file. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of
amount of Rs. 17,25,000/-. It is stated that defendant gave public
notification for auction of property bearing no. GF2A, Ground
Floor, DLF, Ankur Vihar, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP (hereinafter referred
to as the suit property). Since, he was interested to purchase the
said property, he paid the amount of Rs.10,25,000/- through his
bank account maintained at Shakti Nagar Extension to the
defendant on various dates. That after making the said payment, he
came to know that the defendant company has falsely with the
intention of committing the offence of cheating and fraud created a
property which is not in existence. When he asked about the
transfer of title and possession of said property, the defendant kept
on delaying in handing over the possession and transfer of title
documents. Thereafter, defendant executed the documents in his
name on 06.05.2024 and handed over the possession by identifying
the property being under auction. That on 06.01.2025, a stranger
came to the property and claimed himself to be the owner of the
-- 2 of 4 --
property which was handed over to him. Upon inquiry, he came to
know that the suit property does not exist according to the official
map and record of the society. The possession of the property
which was handed over to him is actually no. GF1, Ground Floor
and not GF2A. On further inquiry, he came to know that the
defendant has manipulated the record of the society and created a
false and fabricated registered title documents of the property
which does not exist. He had incurred the expenses of Rs. 7 Lacs in
renovation of the said property. By filing the present suit, the
plaintiff has sought recovery of Rs. 17,25,000/- alongwith
compensation and damages from the defendant.
4. Now, coming to the pleas taken by the defendant in the
application. The first plea is regarding cause of action. It is settled
law that for the purpose of consideration of the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the facts as stated in the plaint are germane.
The plaintiff has sought recovery of the amount paid as sale
consideration to the defendant alongwith damages.
5. Now, coming to the second plea that the suit is barred
under SARFAESI Act. Section 34 and section 17 of SARFAESI
Act bar the jurisdiction of the civil court only with respect to the
measures taken by the creditor in pursuance of any power
conferred under the provisions of the Act. The plaintiff has alleged
that the defendant company had executed the documents of a non
existence property. Section 34 SARFAESI does not bar a civil suit
-- 3 of 4 --
when there are clear specific allegations of fraud such as claim
regarding non existence of the property.
6. As regards the arguments regarding the territorial
jurisdiction of the court, the plaintiff has categorically stated that
the part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of this court as the amount was transferred from his
account maintained at Shakti Nagar Extn, which is within the
territorial jurisdiction of this court. The plaintiff is not seeking
relief with respect to the property but the recovery of the amount
which he has paid to the defendant. Further, the question of
territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact and the
defendant shall have every right to raise the said objection at the
time of settlement of issues and evidence.
In view of the above discussion, the application of the
defendant Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC r/w S. 34 SARFAESI Act for
rejection of the plaint is dismissed.
Put up for further proceedings on 03.12.2026.
(KIRAN GUPTA)
DJ-02, N/W, ROHINI COURTS
DELHI/03.08.2026
-- 4 of 4 --