AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rathnakala, J.
No representation for the respondent.
The petitioner herein is the judgment-debtor before the Executing Court in Execution No. 214 of 2014 on the file of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chitradurga. The decree-holder/plaintiff/State Bank of India had filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of money and the suit came to be decreed. During the execution proceedings, the judgment-debtors filed application LA. No. 4 at Annexure-L and took up objection on preliminary decree as the same being null and void, and without jurisdiction. The Court below did not entertain the said submission on the ground that, the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and cannot examine the validity or otherwise of the decree except executing the same. Accordingly, it proceeded to issue process against the judgment-debtor for sale of the immovable property.
The amendment brought to the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, as per Section 31-A , which was amended, reads thus:
"31-A. Power of Tribunal to issue certificate of recovery in case of decree or order.--(1) Where a decree or order was passed by any Court before the commencement of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (Amendment) Act, 2000 and has not yet been executed, then, the decree-holder may apply to the Tribunal to pass an order for recovery of the amount.
(2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may issue a certificate for recovery to a Recovery Officer.
(3) On receipt of a certificate under sub-section (2), the Recovery Officer shall proceed to recover the amount as if it was a certificate in respect of a debt recoverable under this Act."
The Apex Court in the judgment in the matter of Punjab National Bank, Dasuya Vs. Chajju Ram and Others, , held that, when the amount due for which decree is sought to be executed exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs, it is the Tribunal, which has the jurisdiction and not the Civil Court to entertain an application for execution of the decree. Since the present petition is filed for recovery of Rs. 18,32,525/-, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree. The Presiding Officer of the Executing Court has denied to address the objection raised by the judgment-debtor by presuming that he has no authority to decide the validity or otherwise of a decree. The concerned Court thereby is in omission in not exercising its jurisdiction vested with it under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Executing Court cannot act as a mere robot; the power of the Executing Court is enshrined by catena of judgments of the Apex Court. Sunder Dass Vs. Ram Prakash, ; Raghunath Pradhani Vs. Damodra Mahapatra and Others, ; Indian Bank Vs. M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., ; Tara Bai Vs. V.S. Krishnaswamy Rao, ; Jai Narain Ram Lundia Vs. Kedar Nath Khetan and Others, and Mulraj Vs. Murti Raghonathji Maharaj, .
The judgment-debtor has raised the question of fraud played on him; suit being barred by limitation and the nullity of the decree, etc., in its objection statement, which is not looked into. However, when it is found that the Executing Court has no jurisdiction in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Punjab National Bank''s case, it is inevitable to set aside the order dated 24-12-2005 at Annexure-J2 and the order dated 31-8-2013 at Annexure-L2.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
The order dated 24-12-2005 as at Annexure-J2 and the order dated 31-8-2013 at Annexure-L2 passed in Ex. No. 214/2004 by the Senior Civil Judge at Chitradurga, are hereby set aside.
The concerned Court is directed to consider I.A. No. 4 produced at Annexure-L filed by the judgment-debtor and reconsider and dispose of the application in accordance with law.