IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5272 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:05.08.2009 The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula through its Secretary. ....Petitioner versus Union Bank of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against the order of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, transferring the execution petition in all the connected petitions in Civil Suit No.514 of 1989 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh. Admittedly, the suit was filed for recovery of Rs.5,26,457.08 paise along with subsequent interest. On the date when the suit was filed the Civil Court had alone jurisdiction. 2. At the stage of execution when there was even an application filed at the instance of one of the defendants/judgment debtor for setting aside the ex parte decree, the executing Court directed the party to appear before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Civil Revision No.5272 of 2000 - 2 - learned Judge observed that the amount due from the judgment debtor as per the decree would come to more than Rs.14 lakhs and therefore, the Civil Court will not have jurisdiction. 3. The correctness of the order is challenged by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, who was one of the defendants in suit and who had also filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree that the order is erroneous for it takes into account the amount as claimed in the execution petition instead of finding that the amount claimed in suit was admittedly less than Rs.10 lakhs and the accumulation of interest subsequently after the institution of suit will be wholly irrelevant. In my view, the order of the executing Court is erroneous in failing to note the relevant provisions of The Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Section 1 (4) of the said Act reads as under : “The provisions of this Act shall not apply where the amount of debt due to any bank or financial institution or to a consortium of banks or financial institutions is less than ten lakh rupees or such other amount, being not less than one lakh rupee, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify.” 4. It is nobody’s case that there is any Central Government’s notification reducing the pecuniary jurisdiction to any sum less than Rs.10 lakhs. It is the date of institution of the suit that is relevant for determining the jurisdiction and the fact that subsequent to the institution of suit interest had accrued, shall be no ground to a Court to transfer the proceedings under Section 31. The direction for transfer contained in the impugned order dated 26.09.2000 that the complete file in all respects with reference to the suit and execution in Civil Suit No.514 of 1989 is Civil Revision No.5272 of 2000 - 3 - erroneous and hence set aside. The executing Court which is the Court which passed the decree shall itself dispose of the execution petition . It is also submitted that there is an application in the trial side by the judgment debtor to set aside the ex parte decree. The same shall also be retained only by the trial Court for disposal according to law. 5. The Civil Revision is allowed. No costs. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 27.08.2009. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.08.2009 sanjeev