Decided on January 06,2004



K.S.Kumaran, - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the appellant. The appellant has approached this Tribunal with this Miscellaneous Appeal against the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT"), declining the request of the appellant to be made a party to O.A. 103/2002 pending before the DRT.
(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has purchased the property in question on 28th January, 2000, which was subsequently allegedly mortgaged in favour of the 1st respondent-Bank on 11th March, 2000. According to the appellant, he has got in his favour, the agreement to sell, receipt for payment of money, Will, Power of Attorney and Special Power of Attorney to show that he is a purchaser. He also claims that the appellant has been handed over the possession of the property also. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the 1st respondent-Bank has obtained an ex parte interim order of injunction restraining the defendants therein, from in anyway dealing with the property or creating any third party interest in respect of the said property, allegedly mortgaged in its favour. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that he is the really aggrieved party and is entitled to be impleaded as a party and heard. But this request of the appellant has been rejected by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT. He, found that the DRT is intended for deciding the disputes between the Bank or Financial Institution and its debtor regarding the debts and not for deciding the dispute between the intervener and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
(3.) I agree with DRT. For deciding the dispute before the DRT, the presence of the appellant is neither necessary nor is he proper party. Because, the presence of the appellant is not necessary for resolving the dispute between the Bank and the defendants in the O.A. The provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, arc not intended for deciding the disputes regarding ownership/title or possession between the appellant and the defendants in the O.A. It will be for the appellant to file his objection before the appropriate forum as per the provisions of Schedule-II and III of the Income Tax Act, which arc made applicable to the proceedings under the Act of 1993 for purpose of execution etc. Even otherwise, the appellant will have to seek his remedy before the Civil Court for getting appropriate relief. In these circumstances, I find no ground to interfere in appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Copy of this order be furnished to the appellant.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.