ACME PAPER LTD Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This application being one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated November 29, 1995 passed in an execution proceeding being T.A No.57 of 1995 by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta. By this order, the petitioner's prayer for adjournment, that is to say, stay of the said proceeding during the pendency of an appeal being Miscellaneous appeal No.787 of 1994 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur was refused and the Tribunal directed to proceed ahead with the execution proceeding.

(2.) Be it recorded at the very outset that by enforcement of the Recovery of Debt Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (for short the Act) with effect from June 25, 1993 every suit or other proceeding pending before any court stood transferred to a Tribunal under the provision under section 3(1) of the said Act. What has happened in the instant case is that the decree towards recovery of bank debts to the tune of Rs. 48,12,586.83 was passed by the District Court at Sehore in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh in R.C. Suit No.45A of 1989 and the said decree ultimately stands transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta for execution in a proceeding bearing T.A No.57 of 1995. While some proceeding initiated at the instance of the judgment-debtor/petitioner was still pending in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, the execution proceeding pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta was sought to be adjourned at the instance of the judgment debtor-petitioner. This being the germen of the instant revisional petition, it would now be necessary to give some more details as to the history of tile litigation.

(3.) In a suit for recovery of debt being R.C. suit No.45A of 1985, the Bank-O.P. No.l obtained an ex-parte decree from the District court at Sehore in Bhopal, M.P. for the sum of Rs. 48,12,586.83 with interest @18% per annum and certain amount of costs. The judgment-debtor/petitioner, however, filed an application before the said court for setting aside the ex-parte decree under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court, upon contested hearing, was pleased to reject the said application for setting aside of the ex-pane decree. Against this order of rejection, the petitioner has preferred an appeal being Miscellaneous appeal No.787 of 1994 in the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur. It may be added here that the petitioner also moved the High Court an application for stay but as submitted at the Bar, the High Court did not pass any ad-interim order of stay in the matter. Another aspect of the matter was that the ex-parte decree, which was not set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was since transferred to the City Civil Court, Calcutta for execution but, on account of the point of jurisdiction involved, it was transferred to this court (i.e. Calcutta High Court) for execution and it was registered as execution case No.5 of 1992. In the mean time, the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 came into force and, in terms of the said Act, the execution proceeding pending before this court was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta.