PETER THOMAS Vs. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Defendants in O.S. No.59/98 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala are the revision petitioners. Pending revision the 1st revision petitioner died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional petitioners 3 and 4. A petition C.M.P. No.6653/2001 was also filed for appointment of the 2nd petitioner as guardian of minors additional petitioners 3 and 4. It was allowed by separate orders.
(2.) The respondent - Bank instituted a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,73,786.90 ps. alleged to be due in two transactions. It was averred in the plaint that two loans for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs each were granted to the defendants. One is granted to the 1st defendant for construction of a residential building and the other is granted to the 2nd defendant for business purpose. Commom immovable properties belonging to the 1st defendant were offered as security for both these loans. The suit was instituted on 28.8.1998. Though cause of action was different, since the suit was instituted based on the mortgage, the plaintiff was compelled to institute one suit as contemplated under S.67A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Debts Recovery Tribunal was constituted under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from the appointed day, i.e. 184.108.40.2066. Since the amount exceeds Rs.10 lakhs, the suit ought to have been instituted in the Debts Recovery Tribunal as the civil court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Hence, the defendants raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit contending that the suit is not maintainable and the civil court has no jurisdiction. The court below by the impugned order dated 31st May, 2001 dismissed the petition against which the present revision is filed.
(3.) The court below held that the suit was instituted based on two transactions and on the strength of S.67 of the Transfer of Property Act the suit has been filed and hence there is no necessity to file the suit before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Referring to R.10 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 it was held that the said rule also prohibits in filing application based on more than a single cause of action in a single application. Hence it was held that the suit is properly maintainable before the civil court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.