As per case facts, the petitioner, a Stockbroker, faced a Civil Suit from the respondent (investor) seeking mandatory injunction for share delivery and declaration of an illegal debit. The petitioner ... moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, asserting that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction due to the SEBI Act, which is a complete code for such disputes. The trial court dismissed this application. This decision was challenged in the High Court after a previous similar dismissal and remand. The question arose whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction over matters explicitly covered and barred by the SEBI Act, and if a suit for mandatory injunction alone was maintainable when an efficacious recovery remedy existed under the Specific Relief Act. Finally, the High Court held that the SEBI Act bars Civil Court jurisdiction for investor grievances against stockbrokers, and a mandatory injunction suit is not maintainable if a recovery remedy is available. Thus, the trial court’s order was set aside, and the respondent's suit was rejected.