M F STEELS Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 4,75,09,078.67 P. against the defendant-petitioner with interest at the agreed rate. This suit however, came to be dismissed in default by order dated November 23, 1993. Plaintiff moved an application in February 1994 for restoration of the suit. The trial court by the impugned order allowed the application subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. Present is a revision petition directed against the order of the trial court restoring the suit at its original number. In response to the notice of motion. Mr. J.C. Batra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has put in appearance.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The trial court after considering the application for restoration has allowed the same subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. The suit filed by the bank is for the recovery of money running into crores of rupees and no exception can be taken to the view taken by the learned trial court restoring the suit to its original number. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, pointed out that the costs of Rs. 5,000/- were paid and accepted by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and therefore, in view of the judgment of this court in Amar Singh v. Perlhad, 1989 96 PunLR 513, revision is not maintainable once the costs are accepted. I am entirely in agreement with the view taken in Amar Singh v. Perhald . Even on merits I am satisfied that it was a fit case where the trial court rightly exercised its jurisdiction in restoring the suit at its original number.

(3.) This apart the vires of the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993, have already been upheld by a Division Bench of this court in CWP 12901 of 1996 (M/s. Kundan Rice and General Mills v. Union of India, 1996 ISJ(Banking) 624) decided on 11.9.1996. []. In that view of the matter no exception can also be taken to the later part of the order whereby the trial court transferred the suit to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur. Dismissed.