HARI RAM Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated August 13, 1997, passed by the District Judge, Ferozepur. By this order the learned District Judge has upheld the order dated November 18, 1996, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Abohar, by which the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case as mentioned by the petitioners in the plaint are that the land measuring 102 Kanals 16 marlas, as detailed in the plaint, was previously owned by Shri Thakkar including Nathu Ram respondent. It has further been alleged that the plaintiffs had been cultivating the said land as tenants at will under the erstwhile owners and had purchased the said land under the provisions of Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. It is further stated in the plaint that the entire amount of purchase was deposited in the Government Treasury in instalments and receipts of deposit amount were handed over to the revenue patwari but same are not traceable. It is further stated in the plaint that the respondent-Bank obtained decree for recovery for the amount against the respondent Nathu Ram and others and in that suit, the plaintiffs were not a party. It may be relevant to note that the respondent-Bank had got the decree against Nathu Ram and others in the year 1989. Since respondent No. 2 and others did not pay the amount of the decree to the respondent-bank, the bank initiated the execution proceedings and in those proceedings the bank got attached the said land. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the execution proceedings, the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed objections under Order 21 Rule 58 C. P. C. After the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, (in short the 'act') came into force, the execution proceedings were transferred to the Bank Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, established under the said Act.

(3.) MR . Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that both the Court below have observed that separate suit was not maintainable as all the objections are decided under Order 21 Rule 58 C. P. C. He contended that since the Bank Recovery Tribunal is not governed by the provisions of C. P. C, Order 21, Rule 58, C. P. C. is not applicable to those proceedings.