IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS REVIEW PETITION NO.256 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5701 OF 2018 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
MR. P. RANGASWAMY SON OF LATE PONNUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS NO.64-2ND CROSS VASATHIRAHITHARA SANGA SRIGANDHADAKAVAL, SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU-560 091.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI D.C. PARAMESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER VIJAYA BANK LIMITED, ARM BRANCH NO.19 PRIMEROSE ROAD SHRUTHA COMPLEX BENGALURU-560 025.
2. THE PRESIDENT SRIGANDHADAKAVAL VASATHI RAHITHARA SANGHA (R) NO.17, NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA 1ST FLOOR, 50 FEET MAIN ROAD MUNESHWARA T-BLOCK, GIRI NAGARA BENGALURU-560 085.
3. MR. SRINIVAS SON OF GOVINDAIAH NO.60 K.R. ROAD, 7TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 082.
4. MR. RAMESH SON OF GOVINDAIAH NO.60, K.R. ROAD 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 082.
5. MR. SUBBAIAH SON OF BASAPPA NO.10 OKALIPURAM MAIN ROAD CORPORATION QUARTERS BENGALURU-560 021.
6. MR. CHANNAPPA SON OF LATE KEMPEGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.56-13TH MAIN ROAD J.C. NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 086. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.5701 OF 2018 (GM-DRT).
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the order dated 11-6-2019, passed in Writ Petition No.5701 of 2018. In terms of the said order, it was held that the writ petitioner can make the pre-deposit before the Tribunal and in case he succeeds the amount would be refunded to him. Questioning the same, the instant petition is filed.
2. The counsel for the review petitioner submits that he is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. Therefore, the question of making the pre-deposit would not arise for consideration. The same was not considered in the order under review. Therefore the question was put to the counsel appearing for respondent No.1. He submits that the writ petitioner/review petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. He is the subsequent purchaser of the property. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, we are of the view that insisting on the pre-deposit by the petitioner may not be correct. That he is entitled to contest the matter before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, without any pre-deposit.
In view of the submissions made, the review petition is allowed.
1) The order dated 11-6-2019, passed in writ petition No.5701 of 2018 by the Division Bench is reviewed and recalled.
2) The writ petition is allowed. The order of the tribunal directing the appellant to deposit *Rs.7,50,000/- is set aside. The appellate Tribunal is directed to proceed *corrected vide Court order dated 18.02.2022 and dispose off the matter in accordance with law, without insisting on the pre-deposit.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Rsk/-