A S BINDRA Vs. MUNSIF IST DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel contends that since there is application made under Section 11 -A of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 (U.P. Act 19 of 1973 (as amended) there is implied bar against the suit by the Respondent No. 2 being proceeded with Section 11 of the U.P. Act 19 of 1973, contained originally Sub -section (4) which provided that no suit for recovery of any sum due to a bank on account of financial assistance given to an agriculturist shall lie in the civil court. There is no dispute that this Sub -Section 4 has been omitted by the U.P. (Amendment) Act 19 of 1975. Section 11 consequently does not contain any bar to a suit being brought in the civil court for recovery of the amount. Sub -section (3) of Section 11 provides that every order passed by the prescribed authority in terms of Sub -section (1) or by the appellate authority under Section 12 shall be deemed to be a decree of civil court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such court by the civil court having jurisdiction. On the basis of this sub -section it cannot be argued that there is bar against the institution of such suit. Sub -section (3) only provides the manner in which the order of the prescribed authority under Sub -section (1) can be given effect to or implemented. Moreover so far as Section 11 inserted by the U.P. Amendment Act 19 of 1975 is concerned, there is no provision therein corresponding to Sub -section (3) of Section 11 meaning thereby that the filing of an application under Section 11 -A cannot on in its force be claimed to preclude the maintainability of the suit for the recovery of the amount.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel contends also that since recourse to summary proceeding under Section 11 -A has been taken, it does not remain open to the other side to proceed simultaneously by way of a suit. This also is without merit. Mere existence of alternative remedy in the form of summary proceedings, does not prevent recourse to suit as is now settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Magan Lal Chhaggan Lal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay : AIR 1974 SC 2009. In fact so far as the remedy by way of suit is concerned, the Petitioner can have no legitimate grievance. There is in this adequate opportunity to him to raise his defence and lead evidence with right to appeal etc. available.