PAUL D SOUZA Vs. CANARA BANK BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LA. No. I filed for additional grounds and additional prayer is allowed. Petitioner in this petition is challenging the order passed by the presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 2-12-1996 as also the order passed by the Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal at annexure-E, dated 31-7-1998.

(2.) FACTS in brief are as under: petitioners are the legal heirs of one Sri John D'souza, an Advocate of this Court. He died on 10-11-1994. A suit came to be filed for recovery of Rs. 3,53,29,005. 33 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Nanjangud, against mr. John D'souza and three others. During the pendency of the suit, Mr. John D'souza died. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions Act, 1993 came into force on 30-11-1994. When the Act came into force Mr. John D'souza was not alive. The death was reported by the Advocate representing him on 22-12-1994 by filing a memo before the learned Civil Judge. The Civil Court by an order dated 10-3-1995 sent the records to the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of the Act. The order sheet is at Annexure-A. Though respondents 1 to 4 made note of the death of defendant 8, no steps were taken to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record. After transfer the case was registered as O. A. No. 1268 of 1995. Three separate applications were filed before the fifth respondent. I. A. No. I for setting aside abatement, I. A. No. II for bringing on record the L. Rs of the deceased and I. A. No. III for condonation of delay. According to the petition averments one more application ought to have been filed for condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement. But in I. A. No. III both the prayers were made. There was a delay of 655 days. Petitioners have filed annexures-B, C, D applications and Annexures-E, F and G are the affidavits supporting the applications. Objections were filed in terms of annexures-H, J and K In addition, other objections were filed in Annexures-L, M and N. Detailed written arguments were filed in terms of annexure-O. The Registrar has passed a common order as per Annexure-P. The Registrar has overruled the objections of the petitioners. This order is challenged in this case on various grounds.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, in terms of the additional prayer, petitioner has challenged the office order dated 2-12-1996 issued by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal in exercise of his power under Rule 23 of the Rules. The said order is challenged as being contrary to the provisions of the Act and also on the ground of want of jurisdiction.