VENKATESWARA TEXTILES TRADERS AND PRINTERS Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter arises under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) This Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting question - Whether the suit and the Execution Petition is liable to be transferred under the provisions of the Act of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, pending decision on the claim petitions filed by third party under Order 21 Rules 58 and 99 C.P.C. with regard to the suit mortgaged properties.

(3.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: The 1st respondent-Bank filed suit O.S.202 of 1985 against the 2nd respondent herein for the recovery of certain sum and obtained a final decree on 7.3.1990. The 1st respondent filed E.P.7 of 1990 for execution of the said decree by way of sale of the properties and for recovery of Rs.20,34,089.10ps. The properties belong to the petitioner. The decree was obtained without his knowledge. The petitioner therefore filed E.A.15/91 and E.A.17/92 under Order 21 Rules 99 and 58 CPC, respectively and the petitions were being heard. Meanwhile the Act came into force w.e.f. 24.6.1993. The above E.P. and the E.As. were filed on 11-6-1990 ie., long prior to the commencement of the Act. This Court in a Circular dated 13-2-1995 directed all the Civil Courts not to entertain and decide suits and execution petitions where an amount of debt due to any Bank or financial institutions if Rupees Ten Lakhs and above further all such suits and execution petitions which are pending immediately before the date of establishment of Debt Recovery Tribunal shall stand transferred to the Tribunal at Bangalore. Apart from the above notification, in view of the provisions of the above Act, the suits and execution petitions filed by the Banks, wherein the debt was Rs.10 lakhs and above, also stood transferred to the Tribunal. The 1st respondent filed a memo to transfer the E.P. to the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore. The 2nd respondent and the petitioner resisted the said application on the ground that the claim petitions in the E.P.7/90 were still pending before the Court and the claim petitions should be decided only by the executing Court, as if they were suits, that the Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to try the claim petitions and that the Tribunal was not competent to adjudicate upon the claim petitions. However, the Court below has rejected the objections of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and transferred the suit and the E.P, to the Tribunal, Bangalore. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the C.R.P.