(1.) In this writ application the petitioner-State Bank of India, has challenged the order dated 24-9-88 passed by the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh cancelling the certificate and dismissing the Certificate Case No. 2/79-88 filed by the petitioner-Bank against the borrower and after the death of borrower proceeded against his heirs respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and also the order dated 11-3-1994 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh dismissing the Certificate Appeal No. 85/88 preferred by the petitioner and also the order dated 6-9-1999 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Certificate Revision No. 67/94 preferred by the petitioner against the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
(2.) The petitioners case is that the original borrower namely, Nurul Arfin Gandhi, borrowed loan time to time from the petitioner-Bank from 1970-75 by executing various loan agreements and other documents. The said borrower was also allowed cash credit facility against the pledged stock. In 1979 the liability of the borrower exceeded beyond the stock and pledged limit of Rs. 60,000.00 and cash credit limit of Rs. 20,000.00 and accordingly the petitioner-Bank filed a certificate case against the borrower Nurul Arfin Gandhi for recovery of Rs. 1,07,853.48 paise. Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act the borrower appeared and filed his show cause on 25-8-1980. In the meantime, the original certificate debtor namely Nurul Arfin died on 27-5-1983 and respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were substituted in his place. The Certificate Officer issued distress warrant against the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which was challenged by the said respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 651/85 (R). The matter was heard by a learned single Judge of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court and writ petition was disposed of on 11-7-1986 with a direction to the said respondents to file their objection under Section 9 of the said Act and the Certificate Officer will dispose of the objection in accordance with law. The Certificate Officer, after hearing the parties on the objection filed by the respondents, passed final order on 24-9-1988 under Section 10 of the said Act and cancelled the Certificate holding that the certificate case became barred by limitation and the said heirs of the original certificate debtor have no liability for payment of certificate dues. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Certificate Officer, the petitioner-Bank moved in appeal under Section 60 of the said Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, who by order dated 11-3-1994 dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the Certificate Officer. The petitioner then challenged the said order in Revision before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, who finally dismissed the revision application holding that as on 15-7-1975 only a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 was borrowed by the borrower Nurul Arfin and, therefore, only that amount can be recovered on the basis of agreement executed by him in favour of the Bank.
(3.) Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank, assailed the impugned orders passed by the Certificate Officer, the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner is being illegal and contrary to law and evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that the Commissioner having expressly and impliedly held that the certificate demand to the extent of Rs. 20,000.00 was maintainable, fell into an error of law and committed an error of jurisdiction in holding the liability of the borrower only to the extent of Rs. 20,000.00 by misconstruing the agreement creating liability under the PDR Act to the extent of Rs. 60,000.00 learned counsel further submitted that when the substitution application was duly filed within 5 months and accepted by the Court and also by the High Court, the Certificate Officer committed serious illegality in holding that the substitution petition has not been filed within time, the certificate proceeding became barred against heirs of the original borrower. Learned counsel then submitted that when the demand was not cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner or by the Certificate Officer on the ground of limitation, the Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to reject the demand on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel put heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499 and United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 3.