Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Richhpal Singh vs Syndicate Bank And Ors. on 24 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: IV(2005)BC95
ORDER
Motilal B. Naik, J. (Chairman)
1. Appellant is the principal borrower and the 1st defendant in O.A. 214/2002 instituted by the 1st respondent-Bank.
2. During the course of the trial, this appellant entered into some sort of compromise with the respondent-Bank and filed I.A. 515/2005 under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC for recording compromise. The said application came up for consideration before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal, by order dated 22.7.2005, dismissed the said application solely on the ground that there are other defendants 4 to 8 who have also furnished security and as long as those defendants are not joined as parties, such compromise could not be recorded. It is this order which is challenged before this Court in the present appeal.
3. I have heard Mr. M.C. Kochhar, Counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.K. Dhar, Counsel for the 1st respondent -Bank. On the basis of submissions made by both the Counsel, the point for consideration is whether the lower Court was justified in rejecting the application filed seeking recording of the compromise entered into between the appellant and the respondent-Bank on certain terms.
4. From the submissions, it would appear that in terms of the compromise entered into between the appellant and the respondent-Bank, if the appellant is making payment in terms of the compromise, the entire O.A. claim would stand satisfied against all defendants. In the event of appellant failing to make payment, as agreed, the Court shall be competent to pass a decree for the amount after deducting the amounts which have been paid.
5. The law is well settled; when a suit is instituted, the suitor is at liberty to choose the defendants in the suit. Even after obtaining a decree, the decree-holder is at liberty to execute the decree against one or all the defendants, i.e. judgment debtors. In other words, the creditor is dominus litus, and shall be entitled to proceed against any one of the defendants, whether they are principal borrowers or grantors.
6. In that view of matter, I think the lower Court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant and the respondent-Bank for recording the compromise. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The I.A. 515/2005 is restored to the file of the DRT. The DRT is directed to pass a compromise decree in terms of the conditions contained in I.A. 515/2005.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
8. L.R. copy he marked