RODENIA (INDIA) & ORS Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal impugns two orders/judgments. One is the main judgment which has been passed on merits decreeing the suit of the respondent-bank for recovery of moneys. The second order and which is really the impugned order is dated 14.9.2006 by which the court below has dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on the ground that the application ought to have been filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) inasmuch as on the date of execution of the decree the amount would be in access of Rs.10 lacs.

(2.) The issue is covered against the appellant/defendant by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Punjab & Sind Bank Vs. Rama Minerals and Chemicals & Ors., 2003 1 BankCas 388and which holds that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has to be filed before the DRT and not before the civil court once the decretal amount exceeds Rs.10 lacs. I am bound by the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court.

(3.) It may also be noted that the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of C.J. Glenny Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 2004 1 BankCas 85(FB) has held that once the amount due as on the date of filing of the execution application would be more than Rs.10 lacs, not only the execution application, but also all the incidental proceedings including for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, will have to be filed before the DRT.