The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 01.12.2009, passed in E.P.No.10 of 2008 in O.S.No.25 of 1998, on the file of the District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
2. The respondent – Bank, on the basis of the decree passed its favour had levied an execution petition against the petitioners and it is found that the Executing Court had discountenanced the resistance putforth by the petitioner in the execution petition and ordered further proceedings, by way of attaching the petition schedule properties. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3. It is contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition laid by the respondent / plaintiff and according to him, inasmcuh as after the advent of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”), that only the Debts Recovery Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition and considering the quantum of the amount, for which the execution proceeding had been laid, exceeding Rs.10,00,000/- and accordingly, contended that by virtue of Sections 31 and 31-A of the Act, every suit or other proceeding pending before any Court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under the Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such an establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal. This could be seen from Section 31 of the Act. Furthermore, as per Section 31-A of the Act, where a decree or order was passed by any Court before the commencement of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (Amendment) Act, 2000 and has not yet been executed, then, the decree-holder may apply to the Tribunal to pass an order for recovery of the amount.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
4. In the light of the abovesaid provisions of law, it is evident that as putforth by the petitioners' counsel, it is only the Tribunal, who has got the jurisdiction to entertain the execution proceedings and not the Civil Court and on the above ground itself, it is found that the impugned order passed by the Court below, without jurisdiction, is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Punjab National Bank, Dasuya vs. Chajju Ram and others, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 655, wherein also, the scope of Sections 31 and 31- A of the Act had been considered and accordingly, held that the jurisdiction to entertain an application for the execution of the decree under the Act was possessed only by the Tribunal and not by the Civil Court and in the light of the above position, it is found that the Court below should not have proceeded with the execution proceedings and on the other hand, should have endeavoured to transfer the proceedings to the Tribunal for further action. With reference to the abovesaid point of law, the petitioners' counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court, dated 11.08.2010, passed in C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.1350 of 2008 [V.Sakkammal and another vs. Union Bank of India and others].
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
5. In the light of the above discussions, the Civil Court not having the jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition preferred by the respondent, it is found that the consequential impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 01.12.2009, passed in E.P.No.10 of 2008 in O.S.No.25 of 1998, on the file of the District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, are set aside and the Court below is directed to transmit the execution proceedings to the appropriate Tribunal for further action as outlined under Sections 31 and 31-A of the Act.
7. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.