Parvathi Amma vs South Indian Bank Ltd.

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.—The judgment debtors in an execution proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal has come up with this Original Petition challenging Ext. P5 order of the Tribunal. It is submitted by the petitioners that order is vitiated due to jurisdictional error in so far as the Tribunal did not have power to entertain an execution application in respect of the decree in question passed by a Sub Court before enforcement of Recovery of Dues due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and in so far as the amount claimed in the suit at the time of its institution was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The Tribunal can entertain a suit or proceedings for which the cause of action exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs. The original claim in the suit was only less than Rs. 10 lakhs. As the interest accrued, the total amount due from the judgment debtors exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs. It was because of the delay in taking execution proceedings. The amount due in terms of the decree inclusive of the interest shall not be determinative of the jurisdiction in terms of Section 31 of the Act. The petitioner attempts to re-enforce the contention based on a decision rendered by myself in UCO Bank v. Debt Recovery Trib2001 (2) KLT 865unal, Ernakulam ().

It is true that, concerning the case of very same nature, I have held that debt "as per Section 31 only those suits or proceedings, the cause of action where on it is based is such that it would have been if it had arisen after such establishment" of the Tribunal could be filed in the Tribunal alone. "The cause of action where on the petitioner''s suit was based was admittedly less than Rs. 10 lakhs. In such circumstances, going by Section 31 that amount shall be determinative for deciding the jurisdiction where the proceedings shall be continued". That was a case where the Tribunal did not entertain an execution application. Here the case is reverse. The Tribunal entertained the application in spite of fact that the amount involved in the suit was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. But the amount in terms of the decree inclusive of the interest was more than Rs. 10 lakhs. Necessarily, if this decision is followed, it can easily be said that Ext. P5 was without jurisdiction.

But at the same time, the counsel for the bank brings to my notice a decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank, Dasuya Vs. Chajju Ram and Others, and also a subsequent decision of this Court in O.P. No. 31512/2001 following the said Supreme Court decision. It is further pointed out that the decision of this Court in the said Original Petition was against Ext. P5 itself by other parties affected thereby. Of course, the petitioner was not a party in that case. That is why the petitioner independently attempts this Original Petition.

The decision in UCO Bank''s case was based on the interpretation given by me to the word "cause of action" appearing in Section 31 of the Act. At that time, the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank''s case was not brought to my notice. In that decision the Supreme Court held as follows:

"Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the use of the words ''cause of action'' in Section 31 indicated that it is only pending suits which could be transferred. We are unable to agree with this submission. The words "cause of action" are preceded by the words "being a suit or proceeding". Section 31 contemplates not only the transfer of a suit but also transfer of a proceeding which may be other than a suit, like an execution application. Understood in this context, the words "being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based..." would mean that in the case of an execution application if the decree is for more than Rs. 10 lakhs, then that is the cause of action or the reason for an application for execution being filed before the Tribunal".

Thus the Supreme Court has held that amount claimed in the execution application is also coming within the word ''cause of action'' made mention of in Section 31. Naturally when the Apex Court has pronounced so, that has to be accepted as the final. Consequently it has to be held that Ext. P5 is perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Regarding the other factual aspects and challenges against Ext. P5, I am not pronouncing anything in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank, Dasuya Vs. Chajju Ram and Others, . This Court-under Article 226 or 227 will not interfere with the orders of the Specialised Tribunal over which a separate remedy is provided for. Original Petition is dismissed.