SIDDESH.M vs M/S INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANCE LIMITED — 181/2023

Case under Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc Section 1. Disposed: Uncontested--PLAINT REJECTED/RETURN on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KABR320010272023

Filing Number

184/2023

Filing Date

10-Apr-2023

Registration No

181/2023

Registration Date

10-Apr-2023

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI

Judge

1079-II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLAINT REJECTED/RETURN

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SIDDESH.M

    Adv. P.NARAYANAPPA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANCE LIMITED

  2. 2.M/S INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANACE LIMITED

  3. 3.MUNISHAMAPPA

  4. 4.SOWMYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Summary of O.S. No. 181/2023 Court Decision: The II Additional Civil Judge at Devanahalli rejected the plaintiff's plaint as barred by law under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The court found that the plaintiff's suit seeking permanent injunction against a financial institution's recovery proceedings falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and not civil courts. Key Reasoning: The plaintiff claimed to be a tenant with a lease agreement dated 09.09.2020 and sought relief against interference with his possession. However, since the defendants had already initiated SARFAESI recovery proceedings following loan default and classified the mortgaged property as NPA, the appropriate forum for the plaintiff's grievance was the DRT under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, not the civil court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Orders

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 03-Feb-2026

    Orders

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 02-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 04-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  8. 15-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 02-Jun-2025

    Hearing

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  10. 18-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 07-Jan-2025

    Hearing

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 09-Dec-2024

    Hearing

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 30-Oct-2024

    Hearing

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  14. 05-Aug-2024

    Hearing

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 01-Jul-2024

    Hearing

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 30-May-2024

    Objection

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 08-Apr-2024

    Objection

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  18. 06-Mar-2024

    Objection

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 18-Jan-2024

    Objection

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  20. 17-Nov-2023

    Objection

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 29-Sep-2023

    Objection

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 30-Aug-2023

    Objection

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 14-Jul-2023

    Objection

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 25-May-2023

    Objection

    II Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 10-Apr-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 10-Apr-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 181/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of O.S. No. 181/2023 Court Decision: The II Additional Civil Judge at Devanahalli rejected the plaintiff's plaint as barred by law under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The court found that the plaintiff's suit seeking permanent injunction against a financial institution's recovery proceedings falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and not civil courts. Key Reasoning: The plaintiff claimed to be a tenant with a lease agreement dated 09.09.2020 and sought relief against interference with his possession. However, since the defendants had already initiated SARFAESI recovery proceedings following loan default and classified the mortgaged property as NPA, the appropriate forum for the plaintiff's grievance was the DRT under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, not the civil court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case