ANJANI KUMAR SON OF LATE MAHABIR PRASAD LAL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA - 11 Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent bank.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment dated 02.05.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal [for short "the DRT "], Patna in O.A. No. 70 of 2012 [Central Bank of India Vs. Sri Ram Janam Prasad and others] whereby and where under in exercise of his jurisdiction under Sec. 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 [hereinafter referred to as "the RDDBFI Act "] he has passed a judgment for recovery of Rs. 75,48,762.00 with pendente lite and future interest against the petitioner and defendant no. 3 jointly and severally till realization, and has issued a certificate of recovery in terms of the provisions contained in Section 19(22) of the Act.

(3.) Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner makes a short submission to the effect that impleading the petitioner as a party defendant for the purpose of recovery of the subject dues was completely beyond the competence and authority of the DRT. It is submitted that the action of the Presiding Officer of the DRT is, in the facts and circumstances of the case, mala fide at least in law if not in fact, inasmuch as being merely the disciplinary authority in the disciplinary proceedings held against the erstwhile Branch Manager of the bank, Sri Ram Janam Prasad, the Defendant No. 1, the petitioner could not have been made party as Defendant no. 137 in O.A. No. 70 of 2012 at the instance of the Presiding Officer, DRT, more so on the wrong assumption that the petitioner had exonerated the said Sri Ram Janam Prasad with only minor punishment. It is further submitted that unlike judicial Courts which are empowered under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. to add or strike out the name of a person, whether as plaintiff or defendant, in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, no such power vests in the DRT. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned order of the DRT insofar as the petitioner has been added as Defendant no. 137 at the instance of the Presiding Officer, DRT is wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction.