RAJKISHORE PRASAD ARVIND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. Pursuant to the order dated May 21, 1998, the original file of the certificate proceeding, being Suit No. 189 of 1984-85, before the District Certificate Officer, Vaishali, has been produced before this court. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the requisition made by the bank under Section 5 of the Act does not contain the verification required to be made in Form II. The original requisition contains blanks. The petitioner, therefore, is justified in submitting that there is no proper requisition in the proper form as required by Section 5 of the Act.

(2.) What is, however, more surprising is the fact that the certificate officer has not signed the certificate in the prescribed form and caused the certificate to be filed in his office. In the eye of law, therefore, there is no certificate and in the absence of a certificate being duly signed and filed in his office, the certificate officer could not issue a notice to the certificate debtor under Section 7 of the Act. I have perused the original record and learned counsel for the bank does not dispute the fact that the certificate has not been signed and filed as required by Section 6 of the Act.

(3.) Having regard to these infirmities, I have no option but to hold that the certificate proceedings initiated against the petitioner are irregular and the same have to be quashed. However, having regard to the fact that a requisition has been filed under Section 5 of the Act, which is defective, the respondent-bank is permitted to cure the defect in the requisition. This, however, will be without prejudice to the contention of the petitioner/debtor on the question of limitation. This matter, I leave to the discretion of the certificate officer to decide in accordance with law.