IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 3033 of 2009 BETWEEN: Punjab National Bank, Koti, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Chief Manager Asset Recovery Management Branch: Sayeed Plaza, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Smt. T. Jaya Devi (Hindu) W/o. Sri T. Mohan Singh, H.No. 17-97, Ram Nagar Colony, Alwal, Secunderabad. 2 Smt. T. Prema Devi (Hindu) W/o. Late T. Narasimha Ban Singh 1-10-128, Temple Alwal, Secunderabad - 10. 3 Sri B.R. Srinivasa Yadav (Hindu) S/o. B.M. Ramulu Yadav 17-97, Venkatapuram Ram Nagar Colony, Alwal, Secunderabad. 4 Indian Overseas Bank Rep. by its Manager, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Hyderabad. 5 M/s. Sri Sai Shravan Builders Rep. by Sir A. Satyan, S/o. Sri A. Rajiah, 24-51, Venkatapuram, Alwal, Secunderabad - 12. 6 Smt. S. Surya Kala (Hindu) W/o. Anand, O/o. Regional Housing Engineer, Mettuguda, Near RTA Office, Mahaboobnagar, A.P. 7 Sri. M.D. Raju @ M.D. Ranmahmood (Major) S/o. MD. Rao and also Yajub Ali Jasmine Bed Maker, 15-66/1, Venkataraopet, Alwal, Secunderabad. 8 Sri. D. Raju (Major) S/o. D. Mallaiah, H.No. 81, APDDCF Ltd., Mothery Dairy, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. 9 The Presiding Officer The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. (Respondents 5 to 8 are not necessary to this W.P.) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari Calling for the records from the debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad in connection with SA. No. 203/2007 and to quash the said proceedings on the file of the 9th Respondent as the said proceedings are not maintainable before the 9th Respondent on the grounds that the same are barred by law of Limitation and the 9th Respondent herein has no jurisdiction to entertain the said Securitization Application and to grant the relief sought therein under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 as Amended. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: MR. P. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. K. SURYANARAYNA The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed by Punjab National Bank (herein after referred to as ‘petitioner – bank’) seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to S.A.No.203 of 2007 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as not maintainable. 2. The grievance of the petitioner – bank is that it has issued demand notice dated 09.02.2007 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) and thereafter possession notice dated 13.06.2007 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act to the respondents 1 to 3 herein. The respondents 1 and 2 gave a reply notice dated 18.06.2007 to the aforesaid 13(4) possession notice. Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 3 approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad and filed a Securitization Application in S.A.No.203 of 2007 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act on 24.10.2007 and the DRT passed the following impugned docket order dated 19.01.2009: “Both the counsels are present. The applicant is hereby directed to adduce evidence by the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for R-1 submitted that he wants to argue the matter on the point of maintainability. This Tribunal decided to dispose off the man S.A. on merits including the point of maintainability. Post the matter for applicant’s evidence to 2.3.2009.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner - bank contended that the DRT ought not to have entertained the time barred claim of the respondents 1 to 3, as the said application was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of 45 days after issuance of Section 13(4) possession notice. He further contends that the tribunal ought not to have rejected the petitioner – bank’s plea to try to the issue of limitation as preliminary issue and that the docket order passed by the DRT would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner – bank. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned order was passed long back in January 2009. He further submits that the petitioner’s plea was rejected on the ground that all other questions including maintainability with regard to limitation would be considered and decided at the time of main hearing itself. 5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the tribunal was justified in rejecting the plea of the petitioner – bank to decide the aforesaid issue as preliminary issue. 6. The tribunal has rightly declined to entertain the plea of the petitioner – bank to try the issue of limitation as preliminary issue. It is needless to mention that the plea of limitation is, a mixed question of fact and law and apart from that when once the respondents approached the DRT challenging the proceedings of the petitioner – bank, the DRT cannot, at the initial stage, entertain the plea of the petitioner – bank to try the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue. Even under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, though it is always open to the management to take a plea that the employee is not a workman within the meaning of the Section 2(s) of the Act and request the Labour Court to try the same as a preliminary issue, the Supreme Court in D.P. MAHESHWARI v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION[1] has negatived that issue and held that at the threshold the tribunals, which have been constituted under the special enactments and the Courts requested to decide preliminary questions must therefore ask themselves whether such threshold part-adjudication is really necessary and whether it will not lead to other woeful consequences. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the tribunal below rightly rejected the plea of the petitioner – bank to entertain the issue of limitation as preliminary issue and decided to dispose of the matter on merits. In the circumstances, we do not find any jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court under certiorari jurisdiction. The writ petition, therefore, is meritless and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 2, 2009 DSK [1] AIR 1984 SC 153