Punjab National Bank vs Smt. Savitri Devi

Laxmi Narain Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 19371-CII of 2013:

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit and adopting liberal approach, delay of 135 days in re-filing the revision petition is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly.

C M. No. 19372-CII of 2013:

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case:

Defendant Punjab National Bank has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the CPC (in short - CPC) for deciding issue relating to jurisdiction of Civil Court as preliminary issue.

Respondent-plaintiff Savitri Devi has filed suit against defendant-Bank for recovery of Rs. 3,20,000/- as damages along with future damages and interest etc. The defendant alleged that jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the suit is barred by Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short - the Act). The trial court, vide order dated 12.12.2012, has held that Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the suit is barred by Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 refers to matters specified in Section 17 of the Act relating to bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Accordingly, Sections 17 and 18 of the Act are reproduced hereunder:--

Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals. - (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions.

(2) An Appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act.

XXXX

Bar of Jurisdiction. - On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in section 17.

A bare reading of the two provisions together leaves no room for doubt that the contention raised on behalf of defendant-petitioner is completely fallacious, misconceived and meritless. Section 17 stipulates that Tribunal under the Act shall exercise jurisdiction to decide applications from banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. Vide Section 18 of the Act, jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the said matters (applications to be filed by banks and financial institutions for recovery of their debts) is barred. In the instant case, however, the suit has not been instituted by the petitioner-bank. On the contrary, petitioner-Bank is defendant in the suit. Private person respondent-plaintiff Savitri Devi has filed the suit against the bank. Suit of this nature is not specified u/s 17 of the Act, for which jurisdiction of Civil Court may be barred u/s 18 of the Act. It is thus apparent that jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the instant suit filed by respondent-plaintiff against defendant-petitioner is not barred by Section 18 read with Section 17 of the Act. Consequently, there is no merit in this revision petition, which is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

C.M. No. 19373-CII of 2013:

The instant application for interim stay is disposed of as infructuous.