Allahabad High Court
Ram Pher Yadav vs Union Bank Of India, Varanasi And Others on 16 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(4)AWC3520
Author: D.K. Seth
Bench: D.K. Seth
JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner has filed a suit challenging the recovery sought to be made by the bank. Though details or particulars of the recovery challenged in the suit has not been disclosed either in the plaint or in this application, but from Annexure-2 to this position, it appears that the recovery was undertaken by the Collector under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, on a certificate being forwarded to him under Section 11A of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act. 1973. Admittedly one other recovery has been challenged by the petitioner by means of a writ petition, which is pending.
2. Mr. C. B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present recovery is different from that which is involved in the said writ petition. In the said writ petition, the charging of compound interest has been challenged. In the present case, the respondent had also charged interest at the compound rate which cannot be charged. The petitioner has also deposited major part of the amount. Therefore, upon challenging the recovery, he had filed an application for stay of recovery in the suit. The said application has since been dismissed by order dated 22.9.1998, against which Misc. Appeal No. 70 of 1998 was preferred. The same was also dismissed by order dated 30.7.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Varanasi. These order dated 22.9.1998 passed by the learned civil Judge. Junior Division, Hawali, Varanasi in Original Suit No. 802 of 1998 and the order dated 30.7.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Varanasi in Misc. Appeal No. 70 of 1998 have since been challenged in this writ petition.
3. Admittedly the question as to whether the bank can impose interest at the compound rate can very well be agitated in the pending writ petition. At the same time, a civil suit cannot be maintained in respect of proceeding initiated under Section 11A of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act through the procedure provided under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, by reason of Section 330 (c) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.
4. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no recovery charges can be added to the amount due by the petitioner except the loan amount as has been held in the case of Vidya Dew v. Collector, Mohoba and others, 1999 (90) RD 379 and in the case of Corporation Bank v. D. S. Gowda and another, 1995 ACJ 746.
5. But these questions cannot be gone into in a civil suit, jurisdiction whereof has been excluded by reason of Section 330 (c) of the 1950 Act. It provides that "no suit or other proceeding shall He in any civil court in respect of :
"(a).........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(b) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(c) The assessment or collection of land revenue under Chapter X of the recovery any sum of money recoverable as arrears of Land Revenue."
6. Section 11A sub-section (1) of the 1973 Act provides that the local Principal Officer of the Bank may forward to the Collector a certificate in the manner prescribed for being recovered under sub-section (3) :
"On receipt of the certificate the Collector shall proceed to recover from the agriculturist, the amount specified therein....."
7. In the plaint the petitioner as plaintiff admitted himself to be an agriculturist. He has not pleaded that the loan taken by it was not governed by the 1973 Act. On the other hand he has contended that compound interest cannot be charged and the amount already paid should be adjusted. Thus he had challenged the assessment on the above two grounds and the recovery thereof.
The recovery sought to be made under Section 11A is to be made as arrears of land revenue. The proceedings for recovery are to proceed according to Chapter X of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Therefore, the suit that has been filed is a suit in respect of assessment and collection of land revenue in view of the deeming provision of Section 11A (3) of the 1973 Act. Therefore, the suit is hit by the mischief of Section 330 (c) of the 1950 Act. As such it is not maintainable.
8. If the suit itself appears, on the face of it as not maintainable and the civil court suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction, then it can very well be said that the plaintiff is unable to make out a prima facie case. If it is apparent on the face of the pleadings of the plaint that the civil court has no jurisdiction, then on account of inherent lack of jurisdiction it cannot grant injunction.
9. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. Neither there exists any of the grounds on which this Court can entertain a revisional application. The Court exercises revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution on the same grounds on which such Jurisdiction is exercised by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
10. Therefore, for all these reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. In the result the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution falls and is accordingly dismissed.
11. However, this order will not prejudice or prevent the petitioner in agitating the grounds as advanced by Mr. Yadav in this case, in the pending writ petition or in any other writ petition, as the case may be, nor it will prevent the petitioner from withdrawing the suit, if the petitioner is so advised, before filing such writ petition.
12. However, there will be no order as to cost.