IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WP/1489/2011 SAYED ZOHEB QURESHI V/S M/S DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD ... Shri Mahesh Deshmukh h/f Shri S.S.Gangakhedkar Advocates for petitioner Shri Laharimanohar D.Vakil, Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri Ajit D.Kasliwal, Advocate for respondent No.2 Respondents 3 & 4 – None appears, though served with notice for final disposal. ... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,J. Dated : April 15, 2011 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Shri Deshmukh, learned Advocate for petitioner points out that the execution proceedings filed in 2001 were continued before the Civil Court till 17.1.2011, when by the impugned order, the same have been transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Learned counsel states that before such transfer the Civil Court has conducted an auction and in it, the petitioner is found to be the highest bidder. He states that before Debt Recovery Tribunal, a view has been taken that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the execution proceedings. He further argues that before the Civil Court, the petitioner had filed an application for refund of amount deposited by him but that application has not been decided so far and now the same stands transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal and therefore, at least, a direction to decide it within stipulated period should be given. 2 WP/1489/2011 3. On merits, learned counsel states that respondent No.1 Bank had moved an application before the executing Court relinquishing some part of the interest so as to keep the recovery within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court but that application has also not been accepted. 4. Shri Vakil, learned Advocate for respondent No.1/Decree holder states that though proceedings are transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal, respondent No.1 has urged therein that the proceedings must continue from the stage at which the same were transferred. 5. Shri Kasliwal, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 opposes the arguments of petitioner as also respondent No.1. According to him, the issue needs to be gone into by Debt Recovery Tribunal independently. 6. It is apparent that the claim of respondent No.1 has been crystallized in the shape of the decree and the same was presented for execution. If the claim in a decree itself goes beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court and is cognizable by Debt Recovery Tribunal the application for relinquishment of part thereof also needs to be looked into by the competent forum i.e. Debt Recovery Tribunal. In this view of the matter, I do not find anything wrong with the impugned order dated 17.1.2011 passed by the executing Court. 3 WP/1489/2011 7. The proceedings are received by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the present petitioner is also party to the proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal. His application for refund of the amount deposited by him was pending in the execution proceedings which is now pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Debt Recovery Tribunal has to hear the same and pass appropriate order on merits. The decree holder has not assailed the transfer to Debt Recovery Tribunal and I have considered only the challenge raised by petitioner. I, therefore, need not observe any more in this background. 8. In the result, Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ... akl