2002 (11) TMI 672

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ery of Rs. 7,69,340.36 together with interest thereon. The amount is recoverable by selling the immovable properties mortgaged by defendant No. II with the bank. The defendants were proceeded ex parte. On 20th February, 1998 ex parte decree was passed. It is pleaded that the defendants were never served summons/notices. The defendants became aware of the decree only on receipt of the recovery notice from the Recovery Office after execution proceedings were initiated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal No. 2, Delhi. It is pleaded that the applicant was residing at Saharanpur, where he was working since 1968; as per the service report, defendants including applicant were not found at the given address on 6-5-1986; the service report dated 21-8-1986....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee was passed against them on 20-2-1998 by this court. Therefore, the order proceeding ex parte on 20-4-1987 can only be set aside by this court and not by the Tribunal. Learned counsel argued that the court which passed the decree alone has the jurisdiction to set aside the same. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir AIR 1982 SC 686 and in Official Receiver v. Sellamma AIR 1973 Mys. 154. 5. Law in this regard is settled. The decretal amount being a debt as envisaged under section 2(g) of the Act would fall under sections 17 and 18 of the Act, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the DRT under the Act. Section 31 of the Act deals with the transfer of the cases. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he decree sought to be executed is above Rs. 50 lakhs, therefore, the suit and proceedings thereon stood transferred by operation of law. 7. In another decision, the Supreme Court in Hara Parbati Cold Storage v. UCO Bank 2000 ISJ (Banking) 657, it was laid down that the suits originally instituted in the High Court or transferred to it would get transferred by operation of section 31 of the Act. It was held :- "4. The fact that the suit was originally filed in the Assistant District Court and was transferred under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Original Side of Calcutta High Court to be tried in its extraordinary jurisdiction, in our opinion makes no difference, if initially a suit is filed on the Original Side of th....