AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ranjit Singh, J
The appellant Corporation Bank filed an OA for recovery of Rs. 10,18,373/- with interest @ 19.38% per annum with quarterly rests and the costs of the OA. Notice was issued and the respondents put in appearance. After putting appearance, respondent No. 1 made payment on 8.5.1996, 16.5.1966, 11.9.1996, 16.9.1996 and on 16.9.1996 out of which CC(P) Account No. 1/92 was fully adjusted. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also filed written statement pleading that the contents of the OA were not true and correct as per the record supplied by the Bank with the OA and that the Bank has manoeuvred this limit by inflating the figure of dues and deliberately by not showing the credit entries of a total sum of Rs. 1,97,966/- for the period from 12.2.1994 to 8.3.1996. The Tribunal below on 22.3.1995 passed the following order:
"I have heard the arguments of both the parties, it is admitted fact that the applicant Bank has admitted in the replication that certain credits were not given while preparing the statement of account filed with the OA and it is due to the bona fide mistake of calculation after declaring the NPA account of the defendants. So there is no question of cross-examination on this point. -So far as the jurisdiction is concerned, in my opinion, this point can also be decided in the final orders as the OA has already come to final stage. This IA stands disposed of accordingly."
Thus, the Bank had admitted in the replication that certain credits were not given while preparing the statement of account filed with the OA. The plea was that this is due to bona fide mistake of calculation after declaring the account of the defendants as NPA. The defendants further pleaded that the OA be dismissed on the ground that on the crucial date of filing of the claim, the amount claimed was short of Rs. 10 lacs. The Tribunal below accordingly came to hold that the Tribunal below will not have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this OA. The OA was accordingly returned to the applicant Bank with liberty to file the same before the Court having competent pecuniary jurisdiction. The appellant Bank has filed the present appeal against the said order.
The Counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal was to see as to what was the amount claimed and was not to go by whether the amount claimed was found less than what was claimed and is seen during the trial proceedings. The Counsel has also placed before me a judgment in the case of A.P. Maheshwarai v. Arya Vir Bakshi, 2000 Rajdhani Law Reporter 259. The Court in this case has observed that jurisdiction depends upon allegation made in the plaint and the question of payment of Court fees would not arise at any interim stage but on the final conclusion of the suit. On this basis, the Counsel would contend that the appellant had paid Court fee on Rs. 10 lacs and the Court was to see at the final stage as to what was the amount due and was not to go by what was the position on the day of filing of the application.
It may not be possible for me to accept the submission made by the Counsel for the appellant. If such a mode is approved then the purpose of laying down pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain application by the Debts Recovery Tribunal would become redundant. The Banks would be able to make a claim of more than 10 lacs and plead it to be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and plead before it to decide the issue at final stage to circumvent the pecuniary jurisdiction. The judgment relied upon by the Counsel relates to rent petition and damages claimed therein. In that context, the observations relied upon by the Counsel were made which are referred to before me. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with the OA defends upon the claim which would be due on the date OA is filed. Concededly, the amount claimed may be more than Rs. 10 lacs but was not due which was accepted by the appellant Bank in the replication. The Tribunal below was, therefore, justified in returning the OA to the applicant with liberty to file the same before the Court having competent pecuniary jurisdiction. I do not find any reason which may call for any interference in the impugned order. The appeal, being without any merit, is accordingly dismissed.