Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Putumbaka Purnachandra Rao And Anr. vs State Bank Of India, Shamsheergunj ... on 24 June, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(4)ALT374
ORDER S.R. Nayak, J.
1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Andhra and Karnataka), Bangalore in O.A. No. 663 of 1996 dated 31-12-1997. The respondent/Bank has filed O.A. No. 663/96 for recovery of certain sum of money from the petitioners who are defendants in the O.A. It appears that after filing of all the documents, the Bank sought to produce certain additional documents. At this stage, the petitioners/defendants filed LA. No. l of 1997 under Rule 18 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Proceedings (sic. Procedure)) Rules, 1993 (for short 'the Rules') praying the Tribunal to permit the defendants to file their additional counter in the case. That application was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order. The docket order reads thus:
"Objections to I.A. 1 filed heard. Reply statement is already filed. No further scope to file any additional reply which is not even filed with I.A. 1. Time cannot be even filed with I.A. 1. Time cannot be granted to file. Hence I.A. 1 is rejected. Posted to 4-2-1998."
If one goes by what is stated in the docket order it gives an impression that since the defendants have already filed reply statement there is no need to allow I.A. No. l. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for both the parties submitted that reply statement to which reference is made is not reply statement filed against the objection raised by the bank to LA. No. 1/97; on the other hand reply statement to which reference is made is one which is filed by the defendants to the main O. A. If that is so since the bank-management sought to produce additional documents, in all fairness, the Tribunal ought to have allowed LA. No. 1/97 and considered the objections by the defendants in their additional counters on merits. The Tribunal, without any application of mind to the grounds urged into additional counter to the production of additional documents sought to be produced by the Bank-management rejected the LA. A case is made out to exercise the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the bank submitted that against the impugned order an appeal lies to the appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') and, therefore, the present C.R.P. filed by the defendants is not maintainable. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-bank is not well founded. Section 18 of the Act itself provides that the bar of jurisdiction is not applicable to the Supreme Court and High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It is trite to state that this Court in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution can correct the orders of the Courts and judicial Tribunals functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
3. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31-12-1997 is set aside. I.A. No. l of 1997 is ordered as prayed for. No costs.