IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.795 OF 2008 Between: Beluri Bala Abhiram & another ..... Petitioners AND Beluri Krishna & 2 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.795 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.58 of 2006 in I.A.No.938 of 2008 in O.S.No.54 of 2004, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada. 2. The revision petitioners are the minor son and daughter of the first respondent herein, who is the second defendant, who was representing the first defendant also in O.A.No.15 of 2006, on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam filed by the third respondent herein. O.A.No.15 of 2006 was stated to have ended in issuance of a certificate by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in favour of the third respondent herein on 06.03.2008. In the meanwhile, the third respondent herein issued a notice under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’), demanding the defendants 2 and 3 in O.A.No.15 of 2006 to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.7,64,879.33 Ps. The revision petitioners filed O.S.No.54 of 2004 before the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, challenging the action taken under Section 13 (4) of the Act and sought for an interim injunction against the third respondent herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the subject property, in I.A.No.28 of 2004. On dismissal of the said I.A.No.28 of 2004, C.M.A.No.4724 of 2004 was filed before the High Court and in C.M.A.M.P.No.16266 of 2004, an interim injunction was granted subject to deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- and later, a final order was passed in C.M.A.No.4724 of 2004 for payment of the balance in six equal monthly installments from August, 2006. The revision petitioners contended that time was extended by the High Court on their application in C.M.A.M.P.No.772 of 2007 and within the time granted by the High Court, an amount of Rs.7,64,879.33 Ps. was paid towards the total amount due to the third respondent bank. Still, the bank issued an auction notice fixing the date of auction as 11.02.2008 and therefore, the revision petitioners approached the trial Court in O.S.No.54 of 2004 to record full satisfaction with respect to the debt due to the third respondent bank from the first respondent and consequently, protect the interests of the minor revision petitioners in the subject property. 3. The third respondent bank resisted the petition contending that the suit itself was dismissed for default on 14.11.2006 and hence, the petition is not maintainable. The bank also contended that the remedy of any person aggrieved by any action under the Act is by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the Act and as still an amount of Rs.3,85,000/- was due, the bank had but no other option except to proceed under the Act. 4. On such rival contentions, the Court passed the impugned order referring to the decision reported in MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA[1] opining that the civil Court has no jurisdiction over the matters arising under the Act and consequently, dismissed the petition. 5. The present revision contends that when the entire outstanding amount has been paid by the revision petitioners as per the orders of the High Court in C.M.A.No.4724 of 2004, no amount could have been still claimed to be outstanding and the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in this matter. 6. Heard Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Sri M.K. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the third respondent. 7. The point for consideration is whether the revision petitioners can approach the Civil Court for recording full satisfaction of the debt due to the third respondent bank? 8. O.A.No.15 of 2006 was filed by the third respondent bank against the first respondent herein for himself and the business owned by him and also the guarantor of the first respondent. The claim was for recovery of Rs.10,60,010/- and after adjudication, a certificate was granted in favour of the third respondent bank on 06.03.2008. Apart from O.A.No.15 of 2006, the third respondent bank also proceeded under Section 13 (4) of the Act, which was challenged by the minor son and daughter of the first respondent herein in O.S.No.54 of 2004 through their mother and next friend. It is in that suit, they came up with the present interlocutory application to record full satisfaction claiming to have paid Rs.7,64,879.33 Ps. with the bank claiming Rs.3,85,000/- to be still due. 9. The controversy is about the payment of amount in full or part satisfaction. When the third respondent bank has filed O.A.No.15 of 2006 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, the jurisdiction of any other Court or authority becomes barred by Section 18 read with Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, in relation to all the matters specified in Section 17. The said Act provides the procedure for recovery of debt determined by the Tribunal under Chapter V and the Recovery Officer steps in on receipt of a copy of the certificate issued by the Tribunal under Section 19 (7). As the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, is an exhaustive and self- contained enactment, there appears no scope for falling back upon the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matter for recording any full or part satisfaction as provided under Order XXI Rules 1 & 2 read together and the appropriate course of action would have been to approach the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal/Recovery Officer for an appropriate relief concerning the payment of Rs.7,64,879.33 Ps. said to have been made by the revision petitioners, more so, in the light of Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which gives the Act overriding effect against any other law for the time being in force, subject to sub- section 2 thereof. 10. Even concerning the action of the third respondent under Section 13 (4) of the Act, the Act specifically bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court in respect of any matter, which a Debt Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act to determine. The said Act also was given overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force under Section 35 read with Section 37 of the Act making the provisions of the Act to be in addition to the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, etc. The remedy provided by the Act against any measures taken under Section 13(4) of the Act is an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal within 45 days from the date on which such measures have been taken. As such, the opinion of the trial Court that the civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter does not appear susceptible to any interference, but as the subject matter of this application is not the action taken by the third respondent under Section 13 (4) of the Act, but a request to record full satisfaction on the strength of the payment said to have been made by them, the appropriate remedy available to the revision petitioners appears to be approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Recovery Officer with an appropriate application for recording the said payment and the question whether the payment amounts to full or part satisfaction has to be obviously determined by the Tribunal or the Recovery Officer on merits on such application. 11. While the revision petitioners should therefore, fail, admittedly, no further action was taken so far on the notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act by the third respondent bank and in order to sub-serve the ends of justice and give an opportunity to the minor revision petitioners to seek appropriate reliefs regarding the substantial payment made by them, any further action on the notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act shall have to be stayed for a further period of 30 days and within the period of 30 days, the revision petitioners shall approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal/Recovery Officer, in which event such further action may await the result of such application on merits. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs and any further action on the notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act in R.P.No.86 of 2008 in O.A.No.15 of 2006 shall stand stayed for 30 days from the date of this order to enable the revision petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal or Recovery Officer for an appropriate relief regarding the payment of Rs.7,64,879.33 Ps. said to have been made by them and in the event of their so approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal or Recovery Officer within such time, any further action on such notice shall also await the final result of such application and in the event of default of the revision petitioners in taking action within the said 30 days, the third respondent-bank is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30th September, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.795 OF 2008 September 30, 2010. KL [1] AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2371