AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai dated 20.04.2005
made in Review Application No. 3/2004 in M.P. No. 7/2002 in Transferred Application No. 38/2002.
2nd Respondent Bank filed Civil Suit in C.S. No. 206/1995 in the High Court, Madras [Original Side] against the Petitioner claiming a sum of
Rs. 6,39,722.17 on the basis of the credit card. When the pecuniary jurisdiction of City Civil Court was enhanced, the suit C.S. No. 206/1995
was transferred from the High Court, Madras to the City Civil Court, Chennai and the suit was re-numbered as O.S. No. 9113/1995. In that suit,
there was an exparte decree and when the Petitioner filed Petition to set aside the exparte decree, the said Petition was allowed on condition that
the Defendant [Writ Petitioner] should deposit 1/4th of the suit claim.
As against the said order directing the Defendant to deposit 1/4th of the suit claim, Defendant has filed CRP. No. 836/1999. The said CRP.
No. 836/1999 was allowed on 17.03.1999 and the High Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit on merits. Application in I.A. No.
11430/1999 in O.S. No. 9113/1995 was filed under Order 37, Rule 4 CPC to set aside the exparte decree. That Application was dismissed by
the trial Court which was challenged in CRP. No. 594/2000. CRP. No. 594/2000 was allowed by the High Court on 08.04.2002. In the mean
time, since Debts Recovery Tribunal-II was formed, the High Court directed the matter to be remitted back to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II,
Chennai for further proceedings in accordance with law and on merits of the matter. Before Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Petitioner has filed
Miscellaneous Application No. 7/2002 to set aside the exparte decree. The said Application was allowed by the order dated 30.01.2004 on
condition that Petitioner should remit Rs. 1,00,000/- to the credit of the 2nd Respondent Bank within four weeks from 30.01.2004.
Petitioner has filed Review Application in R.A. No. 3/2004 in M.A. No. 7/2002 to set aside the exparte decree without imposing any condition
and prayed for reviewing the earlier order dated 30.01.2004. The Review Application was dismissed on 17.11.2004. Aggrieved by the order
dated 17.11.2004, Petitioner has filed W.P. No. 36204/2004 and the said W.P. No. 36204/2004 was disposed on 31.12.2004 and Debts
Recovery Tribunal-II was directed to pass orders on the Review Application on merits. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal-II on 20.06.2005 dismissing the Review Application. Seeking to quash the order passed in the said Review Application,
Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
Mr. R. Nadanasabapathy, learned Counsel for Petitioner contended that CRP. No. 836/1999 was allowed setting aside the order of imposing
condition directing the Defendant to deposit 1/4th of the suit claim and therefore, while allowing M.A. No. 7/2002, Court ought not to have
imposed condition to remit Rs. 1,00,000/- to the credit of the 2nd Respondent Bank. It was further contended since the order in M.A. No.
7/2002 was perse erroneous, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II ought to have allowed the Review Application and Debts Recovery Tribunal-II erred in
dismissing the Review Application. It was further contended that Review Application was not at all considered on merits and the order passed is
against the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.
Mr. S. Vasudevan, learned Counsel for 2nd Respondent-Bank contended that even though the suit was filed in the year 1995, for more than 9
years no amount was paid and no progress was made in the suit and therefore, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II was justified in imposing condition to
remit Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was further submitted that Petitioner is highly a educated person and the alleged inability to remit the conditional amount
shows the malafide intention on the part of the Petitioner. It was further argued while disposing M.A. No. 7/2002, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II was
justified in imposing condition to remit Rs. 1,00,000/- and while so, there was no necessity for reviewing the said order and Debts Recovery
Tribunal-II has rightly dismissed the Review Application.
Suit in C.S. No. 206/1995 was filed in the High Court [Original Side] in the year 1995. As pointed out earlier, there were number of
proceedings before passing of the decree. Each and every order passed by the Court/Tribunal was challenged by the Petitioner by preferring Civil
Revision Petition/Writ Petition. By perusal, it is seen that the suit claim was Rs. 6,39,722.17. After number of proceedings, Petitioner has filed
M.A. No. 7/2002 to set aside the exparte decree dated 08.07.1999. While setting aside the exparte decree, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II imposed
condition to remit Rs. 1,00,000/-.
When the suit claim is higher amount and when there is delay in final disposal of the suit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, Court/Tribunal is competent to ask the Defendant to pay portion of the decreetal amount or costs while setting aside the exparte decree; but
such conditions should not be unreasonable or illegal. Time and again the Supreme Court held that while setting aside the exparte decree, Court
can impose condition directing the Defendant to pay portion of the decreetal amount See Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors Pvt.
Ltd., . In our considered view, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II was justified in imposing condition directing the Defendant to remit Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is
pertinent to note that the said order imposing condition directing the Defendant to remit Rs. 1,00,000/- was not challenged by the Petitioner, but
Petitioner has filed only Review Application.
It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. Under Order 47, Rule 1
CPC a Judgment may be open to review interalia on three specified grounds viz., (i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which
after due diligence was not within the applicant''s knowledge; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) for any other sufficient
reason See Lily Thomas, Vs. Union of India and Others, .
Power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not
within the knowledge of the person seeking the review. Debts Recovery Tribunal-II was well aware of the order already passed in CRP. No.
836/1999 [17.03.1999]. Having regard to the long pendency of the matter and the amount due to the 2nd Respondent Bank, Debts Recovery
Tribunal-II imposed condition directing the Defendant to remit Rs. 1,00,000/-. It cannot be said that it was new and important matter which was
not within the knowledge of the Petitioner warranting review of the order in M.A. No. 7/2002. The scope of review is only for review of error.
Since the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II did take note of the order in CRP. No. 836/1999, in our considered view, no review was warranted.
In (2007) 15 SCC 513 [Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai], the Supreme Court held that the limitations on exercise of the power of review are well
settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error
apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached
to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. Applying the ratio of the above decisions and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and that each and every order passed by the Court/Tribunal, Petitioner has preferred Civil Revision Petition/Writ Petition, in our considered view,
the order passed in M.A. No. 7/2002 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record and the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II was right
in dismissing the Review Application.
u/s 20 of Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, any person aggrieved by an order made by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal is to prefer an appeal to an Appellate Tribunal. u/s 20 of RDB Act, remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is adequate
and efficacious remedy and Petitioner cannot be permitted to abandon to resort the statutory remedy of appeal and to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. Viewed from any angle, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be
dismissed.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. There is no order as to costs.