Executable mortgage decree in non-standard form can still support recovery proceedings within the twelve-year limitation period.

A decree arising from a mortgage suit was found to be executable even though it was not drafted in the formal preliminary mortgage-decree format under Order XXXIV Rule 4 CPC. The omission was treated as a defect of form, not one affecting merits or jurisdiction, and Section 99 CPC prevented reversal on that ground. Because the decree was executable, Article 136 of the Limitation Act applied, giving a 12-year enforcement period; the Section 31-A application filed in 2006 was therefore within time. The Court also held that such a subsisting decree falls within the expression "decree or order" under Section 31-A of the 1993 Act, so recovery proceedings before the Tribunal were maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the decree dated 21.04.1995 was a preliminary mortgage decree or an executable money decree, and whether the execution proceeding and recovery certificate could be sustained on that basis; (ii) whether the application under Section 31-A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was barred by limitation or beyond the Debts Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether the decree dated 21.04.1995 was a preliminary mortgage decree or an executable money decree, and whether the execution proceeding and recovery certificate could be sustained on that basis.

Analysis: The decree, though arising out of a mortgage suit, was drawn in the form of an original civil decree under Order XX Rules 6 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and expressly directed payment within 30 days with liberty to realise the amount through execution on default. The Court held that the decree was not in the prescribed form of a preliminary mortgage decree under Order XXXIV Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The omission to frame it as a formal preliminary mortgage decree was treated as a defect of form and not a defect affecting the merits or jurisdiction. The Court further held that such irregularity could not be used to deprive the decree-holder of the fruits of the decree, and Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 protected the decree from reversal on that ground.

Conclusion: The decree was held to be an executable decree, and the execution proceeding was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the application under Section 31-A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was barred by limitation or beyond the Debts Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Analysis: Since the decree was held to be executable, the Court applied Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and held that the decree remained enforceable for 12 years. The application under Section 31-A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, filed on 06.03.2006, was therefore within time. The Court also held that a decree of this nature, if subsisting, falls within the statutory expression "decree or order" under Section 31-A and can support recovery proceedings before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The application under Section 31-A was within limitation and within jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The writ judgment was set aside, the bank's recovery proceeding was upheld, and the challenge to the tribunal's order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree drawn in executable form and not in the prescribed mortgage-decree format cannot be treated as unexecutable merely because of a formal omission, and such an executable civil decree may be acted upon under Section 31-A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 within the twelve-year period under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

---