PARVATHI AMMA Vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment debtors in an execution proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal has come up with this Original Petition challenging Ext. P5 order of the Tribunal. It is submitted by the petitioners that order is vitiated due to jurisdictional error in so far as the Tribunal did not have power to entertain an execution application in respect of the decree in question passed by a Sub Court before enforcement of Recovery of Dues due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and in so far as the amount claimed in the suit at the time of its institution was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The Tribunal can entertain a suit or proceedings for which the cause of action exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs. The original claim in the suit was only less than Rs. 10 lakhs. As the interest accrued, the total amount due from the judgment debtors exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs. It was because of the delay in taking execution proceedings. The amount due in terms of the decree inclusive of the interest shall not be determinative of the jurisdiction in terms of S.31 of the Act. The petitioner attempts to re - enforce the contention based on a decision rendered by myself in UCO Bank v. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam ( 2001 (2) KLT 865 ).

(2.) It is true that, concerning the case of very same nature, I have held that debt as per S.31 only those suits or proceedings, the cause of action where on it is based is such that it would have been if it had arisen after such establishment of the Tribunal could be filed in the Tribunal alone. The cause of action where on the petitioners suit was based was admittedly less than Rs. 10 lakhs. In such circumstances, going by S.31 that amount shall be determinative for deciding the jurisdiction where the proceedings shall be continued. That was a case where the Tribunal did not entertain an execution application. Here the case is reverse. The Tribunal entertained the application in spite of fact that the amount involved in the suit was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. But the amount in terms of the decree inclusive of the interest was more than Rs. 10 lakhs. Necessarily, if this decision is followed, it can easily be said that Ext. P5 was without jurisdiction.

(3.) But at the same time, the counsel for the bank brings to my notice a decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Chajju Ram ( 2000 (6) SCC 655 ) and also a subsequent decision of this Court in O.P. No. 31512/2001 following the said Supreme Court decision. It is further pointed out that the decision of this Court in the said Original Petition was against Ext. P5 itself by other parties affected thereby. Of course, the petitioner was not a party in that case. That is why the petitioner independently attempts this Original Petition.