Smt. Sadhna Chandi Das vs Allahabad Bank on 12 October, 2009

 Regular Second Appeal No.1062 of 2009                   -1-

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH


                           Regular Second Appeal No.1062 of 2009

                            Date of Order: 12.10.2009

Smt. Sadhna Chandi Das
                                                           ....Appellant

                                Versus


Allahabad Bank, New Delhi and another
                                                        ..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

Present: Mr. Vinod S. Bharadwaj,Advocate
for the appellant.

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral).

The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated

04.07.2008 and 17.01.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior

Division),Faridabad and the Additional District Judge, Faridabad,

rejecting her plaint.

The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of

a mortgage deed dated 07.03.2006, alleging that she had not

executed any such mortgage deed in favour of Allahabad Bank-

respondent no.1. The appellant also prayed that the notice of sale

issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction

of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

(hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated 19.09.2007, be set aside.

The trial court rejected the plaint by holding that the

appellant was required to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal in
Regular Second Appeal No.1062 of 2009 -2-

accordance with Section 17 of the Act. It was also held that as per

Section 34 of the Act, the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain such

a suit is barred.

Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the

appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated

17.01.2009, the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, dismissed the

appeal by holding that the trial court has rightly rejected the plaint.

Counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant has

raised a plea of fraud, the Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot consider

and decide this plea as it is a Tribunal with limited jurisdiction. It is

argued that as the Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot grant any relief

with respect to plea of fraud, the judgments and decrees passed by

the court below should be set aside.

I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused Sections

13, 17 and 34 of the Act and do not find any impediment in the way

of the Debt Recovery Tribunal considering and deciding the plea

raised in the plaint. It is apparent that all disputes, relating to a

notice issued under Section 13 of the Act would have to be

challenged by way of filing an application under Section 17 of the Act

before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

As the impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from

any error of law, the appeal is dismissed.

October 12, 2009                                (RAJIVE BHALLA)
nt                                                  JUDGE