C.R.No.3601 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.3601 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 12, 2011 Smt.Bhagwant Kaur Deol and another .....Petitioners v. Punjab and Sind Bank and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 12.8.2009, Annexure P6, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala, vide which plaint filed by present petitioners-plaintiffs was ordered to be returned in view of bar created under Section 34 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (For short `the Act'). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the property in dispute and that the defendants are having no right, title or interest thereon and that note given in column No.12 in the jamabandi for the year 2002-03 is illegal, null, void and is liable to be C.R.No.3601 of 2011(O&M) -2- ignored with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing the petitioners-plaintiffs from the property in dispute. On notice being issued, an application was filed by respondents- defendants, Annexure P4, by taking the plea that jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain the suit is specifically barred under Section 34 of the Act. Respondents-bank had advanced credit facility to M/s Navrattan Steel Strips Ltd., in which husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 is one of the directors. Land in dispute besides other properties was mortgaged in favour of the bank as a security for repayment of loan and form No.84-AA dated 16.3.1998 acknowledging the deposit of title deed, along with copy of title deed dated 18.10.1988 was also filed. M/s Navrattan Steel Strips Ltd. failed to maintain the financial discipline, hence application for recovery of `3,06,76,896.12 as on 31.12.2003 was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Chandigarh, which is pending and simultaneously, respondents-bank had also initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Act and hence possession -cum-sale notice dated 27.6.2008 was issued. Plea was taken on behalf of the bank that Section 34 of the Act specifically bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain any proceedings in respect of any matter, which is pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal. Application was contested by present petitioners-plaintiffs on the plea that the property in dispute owned by present petitioners was never mortgaged and that the property owned by husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 was mortgaged and that in fact wrong entry was made in the jamabandi. Plea of respondents-defendants was accepted by learned trial C.R.No.3601 of 2011(O&M) -3- Court and in view of bar created under Section 34 of the Act, plaint was ordered to be returned. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioners- plaintiffs is that the property in dispute owned by present petitioners was not mortgaged and rather property owned by husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 was mortgaged and hence, it is contended that impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and that civil Court is having jurisdiction. It is pertinent to reproduce Sections 17 and 34 of the Act, which read as under:- “17.Right to appeal.-(1)Any person, (including borrower) aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub Section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, [may make an application alongwith such fee, as may be prescribed] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower. (2) The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security are in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. C.R.No.3601 of 2011(O&M) -4- (3) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13, taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, and require restoration of the management of the secured assets to the borrower or restoration of possession of the secured assets to the borrower, it may by order, declare the recourse to any one or more measures referred to in-sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured assets as invalid and restore the possession of the secured assets to the borrower, or restore the management of the secured assets to the borrower, as the case may be, and pass such order as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of Section 13. (4) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal declares the recourse taken by a secured creditor under sub-section (4) of Section 13, is in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the secured creditor shall be entitled to take recourse to one or more of the measures specified under sub-section (4) of Section 13 to recover his secured debt. (5) Any application made under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as expeditiously as C.R.No.3601 of 2011(O&M) -5- possible and disposed of within sixty days from the date of such application: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, from time to time, extend the said period for reasons to be recorded in writing, so, however, that the total period of pendency of the application with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, shall not exceed four months from the date of making of such application made under sub-section (1). (6) If the application is not disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the period of four months as specified in sub-section (5), any party to the application may make an application, in such form as may be prescribed, to the Appellate Tribunal for directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may, on such application, make an order for expeditious disposal of the pending application by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. (7) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall as far as may be, dispose of application in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and the rules made thereunder. 34. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction.- No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to C.R.No.3601 of 2011(O&M) -6- determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 (51 of 1993).” Admittedly, loan was advanced to M/s Navrattan Steel Strips Ltd., in which husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 is one of the directors. Some property was mortgaged with the bank as a security for repayment of loan. A petition has already been filed by respondents- bank for recovery of `3,06,76,896.12 before Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Act and proceedings are also initiated under Section 13 of the Act. Hence, when the matter is already pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Jurisdiction of this Court is specifically barred under Section 34 of the Act. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or C.R.No.3601 of 2011(O&M) -7- of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 12.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge