ARAVINDAKSHAN Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above matter came up before us based on a reference dated 19th October, 2005 by the Division Bench before whom the matter came up for hearing/The short question that requires to be answered in this reference is as to which is the appellate forum to which an appeal will lie from a decree passed by a civil court exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs in a suit instituted by a financial institution

(2.) The suit O.S. 408/1995 was filed by the first respondent Bank before the Additional Sub Court, Kollam for realisation of Rs. 8,16,797/- with interest from defendants 1 to 7 who are the appellants. The suit originally instituted was for an amount of less than Rs. 10 lakhs and concededly, the suit has necessarily to be filed before the civil court as the valuation of the suit is less than Rs. 10 lakhs. If only it exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs, the Debt Recovery Tribunal gets jurisdiction over the matter. However, eventually when the suit was decreed, it exceeded the decree amount and including interest of Rs. 38,48,960/- it came to Rs. 46,65,757/-. It was contended by the appellants that the appeal would lie before the High Court whereas the respondent contended that the appeal will he only before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The first respondent also relied on the decision of this Court in Glenny v. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. 2003 (2) KLT 973 wherein there is a passing reference that in a case where a decree was passed by the civil court for an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs or more, appeal would lie before the Appellate Tribunal. Placing reliance on the decision in Cochin Malabar Estate & Industries v. State of Kerala 2002 (1) KLT 588, it was contended before the Division Bench that the Division Bench is bound by the Full Bench decision in Glenny's case 2003 (2) KLT 973. In the reference order the Division Bench held that in the Full Bench decision in Glenny's case 2003 (2) KLT 973 the question that came up for consideration was whether the provisions of the Act debar the civil court from setting aside an ex parte decree passed by it. An application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the exparte decree was filed which was dismissed by the court below holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. An appeal was preferred to this Court against the said order which was ultimately referred to the Full Bench. The question was whether the appeal has to be filed before the Tribunal constituted under the Act or before the High Court. There was no occasion in such circumstances to consider whether the appeal should be filed before the Tribunal or before the High Court in a situation like the present one when the decretal amount exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs, though the suit as such was instituted for less than Rs. 10 lakhs. However, in view of the Full Bench decision in Glenny's case 2003 (2) KLT 973 the matter was referred to us.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondents. It is the specific contention of the respondent that when the decretal amount exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs, only the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act has jurisdiction to entertain any appeal against such a decree.