B.J.SHETHNA, J. - (1.) SHORT but interesting question of law arising in this petition is viz., 'Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal has any jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim or not?' If, 'No', then Tribunal was justified in reviewing its own earlier order?
(2.) IN this case, the Tribunal by its earlier order dated 11.6.1996 (Annex. 3) held that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide the counter claim. The said order was subsequently reviewed by the Tribunal by its order dated 5.6.1998 (Annex.6). The same is challenged by the petitioner - original defendant in a suit filed by the Bank before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel Ms. Gupta for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in reviewing its own earlier order dated 11.6.1996 by the impugned order dated 5.6.1998 (Annex. 6). She submitted that once the Tribunal has come to the conclusion way back on 11.6.1996 that it had jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim then merely because there was a subsequent pronouncement of this Court, it would not be a ground for the Tribunal to entertain review petition that too after a period of two years in absence of any application for condoning delay. It is true that when the earlier order was passed by the Tribunal on 11.6.1996, there was no judgment of this Court taking view that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim. It is also true that the review petition was filed after a long time. But, there was no provision for reviewing under the Rules. Rule 5 -A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (for short, 'the Rules') for review was added by the subsequent amendment, which came into force on 19.6.1997. Thereafter, review petition was filed. During the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, this Court in case of Ballabh Das and Anr. v. S.B.B.J. and Ors. reported in 1997 (1) WLC (Raj.) 479, held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim.
(3.) IN view of the above, when the Bank filed a review petition before the Tribunal for reviewing its earlier order dated 11.6.1996, then in my opinion, the Tribunal had no option but to review its earlier order. It is true that the review petition was filed late but the review petition could have been filed only after the provision of review was made in the Rules. It is also true that the Court or the Tribunal should not lightly review its own orders. But, when the question of jurisdiction is there and there is a pronouncement from the competent court about the jurisdiction to entertain counter -claim then, in my opinion, the Tribunal had to review its earlier order because it had no jurisdiction and it was going to the root of the matter. The question involved in this matter is of jurisdiction and it is well settled that no court can entertain a matter when it has no jurisdiction.;