IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.7088 of 2002
M/S Pawan Trading Company, a proprietorship firm having
its place of business at Jhanjharpur R.S., P.S.-
Jhanjharpur R.S., District- Madhubani through its
proprietor Shri Pawan Kumar .--Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Deptt. Of Banking Division, Shashi Bhawan,
New-Delhi.
2. The Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna,
396 East Boring Canal Road, Town and District Patana..
3. The Central Bank of India, Jhanjharpur Branch,
Madhubani through its Branch Manager.
--- Respondents.
**********
For petitioner: M/S S.D.Sanjay with Gautam Kejriwal,
Advocates.
Advocate for Respondent- Bank: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha,
Adv.
*****************
8/ 03-12-2010 Heard Mr. S.D.Sanjay, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar
Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.3.
2. The present writ petition was originally
filed seeking a direction from this Court to transfer Title
Suit No. 1 of 1993 (M/S Pawan Trading Company
versus Central Bank of India and others), pending in
the court of learned Subordinate Judge, Madhubani to
the court of learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna for
being heard along with Mortgage Suit No. 128 of 1993,
re-numbered as P.T. Case No. 2 of 2000, which was
already pending before the learned Debt Recovery
Tribunal, Patna. Though the writ petition was filed as far
2
back as on 28.06.2002, but the order of stay was neither
prayed for nor passed by this Court. Therefore, the
aforesaid Title Suit No. 1 of 1993 was finally disposed of
by judgment and order dated 7th April, 2009 (Annexure-4
to I.A. No. 8677 of 2009). In view of disposal of the suit,
the first part of the relief sought for by the petitioner
became infructuous. Therefore, the aforesaid I.A. No.
8677 of 2009 was filed on 24.12.2009 seeking
amendment in the prayer portion. Unfortunately that
matter could not be taken up and remained pending. In
the meantime, as has been submitted by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that Mortgage Suit
No. 128 of 2003, re-numbered as P.T. Case No. 2 of 2000,
has also been disposed of by the learned Debt Recovery
Tribunal, Patna. Obviously, now Title Suit No. 1 of 1993
and Mortgage Suit No. 128 of 2003 renumbered as P.T.
Case No. 2 of 2000 cannot be heard and decided
together. To that extent no relief can be granted by this
Court.
3. In the aforesaid background, learned
counsel for the petitioner has made a limited prayer and
has submitted that against the final order passed by
learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna in P.T. Case No. 2
of 2000, a Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 2010, under
section 22(2)(e) of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks
3
and Financial Institutions Act, 1993(51 of 1993)
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been filed and is
still pending and he may be permitted to raise all the
issues before learned Debt Recovery Tribunal. He further
submits that certain reliefs have been granted to the
petitioner in Title Suit No. 1 of 1993 in which
respondent- Bank was a defendant and, therefore, in the
suit bearing P.T. Case No. 2 of 2000, filed by the
respondent- Bank, relief granted to the petitioner in the
said suit is required to be adjusted.
4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank has rightly
submitted that the issues involved cannot be now
decided by this Court and entire matter could be heard
and decided by learned Debt Recovery Tribunal in
accordance with law.
5. Be that as it may, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, this writ petition stands
disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the
issues before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna
in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 2010, if so
filed and still pending, which shall be considered and
disposed of on its own merit in accordance with law.
BTiwary/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)