Civil Revisional Pleas Should Not Be Entertained Against Ex-Parte Orders Of Debt Recovery Tribunal: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that an aggrieved individual can appeal against 'any order' passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal before the Appellate Tribunal as per section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and that civil revisional petitions should not be entertained for the same.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan further clarified, that since an alternative and equally effective remedy was already provided for, the High Court should refrain from entertaining Civil Revision Petitions arising out of an interlocutory order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

"The Act,1993, thus provides that an order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal. The order of the present nature is also covered under the expression 'any order'. It is not confined to order granting or refusing stay. A bare reading of Section 20 of the Act shows that any person aggrieved by an order made or deemed to have been made by a Tribunal under the Act may prefer an appeal to an appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. The Right of appeal is against an 'order made' or 'deemed to have been made'. The order rejecting the application for condonation of delay or/and the application for setting aside the exparte order, is an order within the meaning of this expression under Section 20. The only restriction on the right of appeal is under sub section (2) of Section 20."

Background:

The inception of the case was when Punjab National Bank initiated proceedings against the petitioner herein and others for recovery of amounts.

When no evidence was led by the defendant, the trial court closed the evidence and passed an ex-parte order in favour of the Bank.

The petitioner filed an application to set aside the order and condoned the delay in filing the application to set aside.

Both the petitions were dismissed by the Court holding that the order was not an ex-parte one.

Challenging the same the present two CRPs have been filed.

Without going into the merits of the case, the Bench noted that section 20 of the 1993 Act provides for an appeal against the order of a debt recovery tribunal and as such was not inclined to entertain the same.

Relying on Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society vs. Ameena Begum and another the petitioner's counsel contended that an aggrieved party had three remedies against an ex-parte order, them being: an appeal, an application to set aside the order, or, review.

The trial court had concluded that there are multiple reliefs against an ex-parte order. However, the bench countered that the judgement relied on by the petitioner himself stated that an ex-parte decree is appealable under and merely because an application to set aside the ex-parte decree was filed, it will not close the remedy of appeal.

"Even if he filed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C, on rejection of the application by order impugned herein, it cannot be said that such an order is not appealable. The petitioner has got statutory alternative remedy. Consequently we are not inclined to entertain the petition."

Thus the review was dismissed.

Boddu Prasad Rao v. Punjab National Bank

Counsel for petitioner: Penjuri Venugopal

Counsel for the respondent : Sravan Kumar Mannava

Click Here To Read/Download Order