S RAMABRAHMAM Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the order dated 17.7.2001 in I.A.No.1659 of 2001 in O.S.No. 9 of 2001 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.

(2.) Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal briefly are as follows: The first defendant in O.S.No.9 of 2001 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, claiming himself to be the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff was said to have borrowed various amounts from the Indian Bank, Vijayawada Branch.The said bank is the fourth defendant in the above suit. The said bank filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to recover a huge sum borrowed by first defendant. The said application is now pending as O.A.No. 217 of 1999 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. It also appears that the bank authorities gave a police complaint against its Manager Sri C. Narayana Rao and some others stating that they have cheated the Indian Bank to a tune of more than Rs.27,00,000=00. It also appears that the police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the said Manager and others before a Criminal Court. The present appellant filed the above suit in O.S.No. 9 of 2001 seeking the declaration that the general power attorney dated 19.10.1990 in favour of the first defendant is void as being forged and also seeking consequential relief of injunction restraining the bank - 4th defendant from proceeding against the plaintiff in O.A.No.217 of 1999 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. He filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., seeking temporary injunction restraining the bank, which is the respondent herein, from proceeding against him in O.A.No.217 of 1999. The said petition was dismissed on merits by the trial court. Aggrieved by that order, he filed the present appeal.

(3.) In my considered opinion the present proceeding launched by the appellant is an abuse of the process of law. When the application for recovery of the debt is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and if the said debt is not binding on the present appellant for any reason whatsoever, the only remedy left to the present appellant is to take such a plea and prove the same in the proceeding pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and then get the said application dismissed against him. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the contents in the F.I.R., lodged by the bank authorities disclose that there is a collusion between its Manager and the first defendant and some others, lodging of the F.I.R., was suppressed by the bank authorities at the time of filing O.A., to recover the debt before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and therefore it is necessary, pending disposal of the suit filed by him in the Civil Court, that all further proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall be stayed. I see no force in that contention.