IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14720 of 2008 1. M/S Kailash Art International, Factory and Regd. Office at Jamsaut Ushri, P.S.-Danapur, District-Patna, a proprietorship concern of Sri. Saryug Prasad Singh. 2. Sri. Saryug Prasad Singh, S/o-Late Lal Kishun Singh. 3. Smt. Sabitri Devi wife of Sri. Saryug Prasad Singh, Both resident of Gandhi Nagar(Gabhtal)Danapur, P.O.-Digha, P.S.- Digha, District-Patna. ………Petitioners. Versus 1. Central Bank Of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies(Acquisition and Transfer of undertaking) Act, 1970 having its Central Office at Chandramukhi Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, carrying on its business amongst its other branches, its Branch at Danapur, P.O.-Danapur, P.S.-Danapur, Dist-Patna represented by the Chairman cum Chief Managing Director. 2. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India Branch, Danapur, P.O. & P.S.-Danapur, District-Patna. ……...Respondents 1st Set. 3. The Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna, Trisul Bhawan, East Boring Canal Road, Patna. Respondent 2nd Set. ----------- 03. 09.02.2009 The petitioner was indebted to the Central Bank Of India. The debt was secured by a mortgage. On default the Bank filed a mortgage suit being Mortgage Suit No. 572 of 1987. In the said suit a preliminary decree was passed by the Civil Court on 21.04.1995 for an amount of about Rs. 1,49,000/- with interest pendentelite till realization. On 12.06.1996 an execution case was filed before Sub-Judge-III, Danapur being Execution case No. 05 of 1996 by the Bank. It appears that petitioner in the meantime filed an application for recall of the alleged ex-parte decree. On 17.04.2004 - 2 - execution case was dismissed for non prosecution. No steps were taken for restoring execution case instead the Bank then moved D.R.T. on 07.03.2006 for execution and recovery of the decretal amount as per the preliminary decree along with interest which was registered as OA (EX) case. Petitioner alleges that the day on which he appeared before the D.R.T., certificate was issued without granting opportunity of hearing to him. He challenges the proceedings aforesaid primarily on three grounds. Firstly according to him a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit is per say not executable, if executable it is executable only in the shape of obtaining a final decree of fore closure and sale of the mortgage assets for recovery of the amount under the mortgage, these powers are not conferred on D.R.T. A preliminary decree in a mortgage suit can not be treated as a simple money decree and execution thereof sought through the D.R.T. It is not a decree for legally recoverable dues as learned counsel for the petitioner states. His second submission is that the proceedings before D.R.T. are barred by limitation. He states that by virtue of Section 24 of the D.R.T. Act though provisions of Limitation Act apply the decree that is being sought to be executed through the D.R.T. is on an “application” in terms of Section 31A of D.R.T. Act to the D.R.T. It being an “application” to D.R.T. for - 3 - execution or recovery then Article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply and not Article 136. Article 136 is the limitation for execution of a decree. The next ground for challenge is that the decree was only for about Rs. 1,49,000/- but the jurisdiction of D.R.T. is starts with Rs. ten lakhs. He submits that merely leaving the decree unexecuted and then adding interest thereon jurisdiction can not be conferred on D.R.T. First coming to the 3rd question, in my view, the same is settled by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank, Dasuya Versus Chajju Ram and Others reported in 2000(6) SCC 655 which has been followed by this Court in the case of Durga Prasad Sah Versus State of Bihar and Others reported in 2003(2) P.L.J.R. 409. The Value for the purposes of jurisdiction would be thus the decretal amount along with interest decreed on the day when such an application is made before D.R.T. In the present case it is not in dispute that on the day when application was made to D.R.T. the decreetal amount along with accrued interest exceeded rupees ten lakhs and thus D.R.T. had jurisdiction aforesaid to entertain the case. Other two questions that are question of jurisdiction which for the petitioner it would be advisable to raise before the D.R.T. at the first instance. Petitioner’s grievance is that D.R.T. - 4 - has already issued a certificate which is pending, recovery and attachment orders have already been passed. Be that as it may, the recovery proceedings having not progressed beyond attachment order for the moment would be kept in abeyance. This would be subject to orders that D.R.T. may pass on the objections being raised by the petitioner within a fortnight from today. D.R.T. would decide all objections as raised by petitioner within a period of two months from the day such objection is filed before the Presiding Officer, D.R.T. subject to petitioner cooperating in the matter. Presiding Officer of D.R.T. would be well advised to hear the parties and then decide the issue about its own jurisdiction and deal with all the objections as raised by the petitioner. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)