PRAVAT KUMAR BANERJEE Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two civil revisions have been heard separately on the question of maintainability, and because a common question of law is involved relating to maintainability of both the civil revisions, therefore this common judgment shall abide the result of that issue involved in both the revisions.

(2.) IN Civil Revision No. 231 of 2002, defendants No. 1, 5 and 6 in M.A. No. 19 of 2002 (arising out of T.C. No 185 of 2001) have challenged to the order passed on March 7, 2002) by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack. Plaintiff (described as the applicant) and the defendants No. 2 to 4 are the opposite party members in this revision. It appears from the impugned order that an application for filing additional written statement by the defendants 2 and 3 was allowed by the Tribunal subject to payment of cost. Petitioners challenge to correctness and legality of that order.

(3.) AT the stage of admission, the opposite party, i.e., The United Bank of India (plaintiff in both the cases) raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the civil revisions in view of the provision in Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short, 'the Act'). Learned counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party argued that in view of the provision in Section 20 of the Act an appellate forum having been provided to challenge to any order passed by the Tribunal, therefore, the revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the Code') is not maintainable. On the other hand the contentions of the counsel appearing for the petitioners in each of the revisions are that :