STATE BANK OF MYSORE Vs. V.E. PONAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 17.07.2010 passed on I.A. No. 6 in Execution Petition No. 48/1999.

(2.) THE petitioner -Bank had instituted the execution proceeding in Ex. No. 48/1999 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Madikeri. The judgment debtors who had appeared therein had objected to the filing of the execution petition in the Court of the Civil Judge at Madikeri keeping in view that the claim made in execution petition was in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Executing Court by its order dated 28.01.2010 had allowed the application in I.A. No. 4 filed by the judgment debtors and closed the execution petition but granted liberty to the petitioner -Bank to file fresh petition for recovery of the amount due from the JDRs before the proper forum within 20 days from the date of the order. Since the petitioner -Bank did not file the proceedings before the appropriate forum within the time frame provided, the application in I.A. No. 6 under Section 148 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.)., Madikeri seeking extension of time to file the execution petition before the appropriate forum which in the instant case was before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court below has dismissed the application by its order dated 17.07.2010. The said order is assailed in the instant petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent would however seek to sustain the order passed by the Court below. It is his contention that when the Court below had held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition the application subsequently filed could also not be entertained by the Executing Court and therefore, the Court below is justified in its conclusion. It is contended that the petitioner -Bank had not indicated bonafide reason for seeking extension of time and therefore, the Court below was justified in dismissing the application. The learned Counsel has also relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of K. Kunhambu & Anr., vs. Vijaya Bank reported in : ILR 1996 Kar 3244 and in the case of Karnataka Bank Limited, Holenarasipur vs. S.N. Nanjappa and Another reported in : II (1999) Banking Cases 378. Hence, it is contended that in the instant case, petition is liable to be dismissed.