- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Real Estate and Construction and Technology topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
The High Court of Delhi through its judgment dated 13.11.2025 in Rajiv Sareen v. Divyanshu Enterprises & Ors.1 held that a civil suit seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed is maintainable before a civil court and is not barred by Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act") as the Debts Recovery Tribunal ("DRT") lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes concerning cancellation of conveyance deeds.
The Court held that the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act does not oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to decide upon the validity or cancellation of registered sale deeds. It further held that a remedy which lies exclusively within the domain of the Civil court cannot be entertained by the DRT.
The Court further noted that the lower court erred in invoking Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and Sections 91-92 of the Evidence Act, 1908 at the stage of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC where only the averments of plaint are to be examined, restoring the suit for trial.
Footnote
1. FA(OS) 7/2022
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
