1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5093/2008 M/s.Swastika Builders & Developers & anr. Vs. The Judge, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur & ors. Date of Order :: 29th July 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Rajesh Panwar for the petitioners Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to consider interference in extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction in this matter. An application (Original Application No.19/2006) was made by the respondent No.2, the Udaipur Mahila Urban Co- operative Bank Limited, Udaipur ('the applicant-Bank' hereinafter) before the respondent No.1, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' hereinafter) arraying the present petitioners and so also the respondents Nos.3 and 4 as the defendants. Thereafter, an application (IA No.39/2008) was moved on behalf of the applicant-Bank seeking return of Original Application for the purpose of taking up the proceedings before the competent authority in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. M/s. United Yarn Tex 2 Pvt. Ltd. and others: 2007 AIR SCW 2325 holding that the Co- operative Banks are not covered under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The defendants-petitioners, however, moved the applications before the Tribunal questioning the documents filed by the applicant-Bank and it was prayed that proceedings be initiated under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the applicant-Bank for filing forged and fabricated documents before dealing with its prayer for return of Original Application. Under the impugned order dated 09.05.2008 (Annex.5), the Tribunal has noticed the contentions as urged on behalf of the defendants-petitioners and has observed that unless a finding was given to the effect that any document or evidence produced in the Court during trial was false or fabricated, no proceedings could be initiated under Section 340 read with Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Tribunal has also observed that the alleged documents were not filed in original and only the copies were filed and in relation to an offence for producing forged and fabricated document, cognizance could be taken when the original was produced and not on the basis of copy thereof. The Tribunal has, thereafter, considered the question as to whether Original Application be returned to the applicant- 3 Bank; and an objection was raised by the petitioners to the effect that Original Application was required to be dismissed and could not be returned. The Tribunal has observed that when the proceedings were found to be not of its jurisdiction, the Original Application could not be dismissed and has ordered its return for the purpose of taking necessary action. The Tribunal has, of course, allowed the application as moved by the applicant-Bank while awarding costs of Rs.2,000/- to the present petitioners for delay on the part of the applicant- Bank in moving the application. Seeking to challenge such part of the order passed by the Tribunal (Annex.5) whereby the prayer for proceeding against the applicant-Bank under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been declined, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the copies of documents, placed on record of this writ petition as Annex.4, and submitted that there had been material alterations and interpolations in such documents and the prayer of the petitioners for adopting suitable proceeding against the applicant-Bank ought to have been allowed. From the averments as taken in the petition and the submissions as made on behalf of the petitioners, it is noticed that other part of the order as passed by the Tribunal, for returning Original Application to the applicant-Bank, has not, as such, been challenged by the petitioners. When such part 4 of the order is not challenged and remains final, the position obtainable is that no proceedings are pending before the Tribunal concerned and stand finally disposed of with return of Original Application with documents to the applicant-Bank. When the proceedings are no longer pending before the Tribunal concerned, it does not appear appropriate to consider any enquiry into the allegations of the petitioners that the applicant-Bank did not file truthful documents or filed fabricated documents. Noteworthy it is, as observed by the Tribunal concerned, such documents have not been acted upon by the Tribunal and then, the originals were also not before the Tribunal. In any case, with the proceedings before the Tribunal having been terminated, there appears no reasons to take up the enquiry, as sought to be suggested by the petitioners, in this writ petition. The petition does not merit admission and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK