(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Learned counsel Shri B.D.Karia for the appellant Bank stated under instructions that the Bank would like to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing appropriate proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. For such purpose, he sought permission to withdraw the First Appeal. He pointed out that as per the impugned order of the Trial Court, suit of the present appellant was not maintainable before the Civil Court in view of the provisions contained in the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. In other words, the contention of the respondent that the suit was barred by the provisions of law was accepted by the Civil Court. Counsel, however, submitted that for the period which the appellant spent on bonafide pursuing the remedy before the Civil Court as well as this Court carrying an impression that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit should be granted set-off while considering the question of limitation in the proceedings that the appellant may institute before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Learned counsel Mr.Majmudar for the respondent, however, submitted that even ignoring such period, the suit of the Bank was barred by law of limitation.
Be that as it may, the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall examine all aspects, if and when the appellant Bank presents its suit before the said Tribunal as stated before us. Surely, if the appellant files appropriate application claiming benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, in view of the civil suit filed before the Civil Court and thereafter the present appeal before this Court, all contentions shall be examined by the Tribunal with reference to the question of limitation.
Subject to the above observations, the appeal is disposed of as withdrawn.
In view of disposal of the First Appeal, Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of as infructuous.
(Akil Kureshi J.) (C.L.Soni, J.) (vjn) Top