M/S Rodenia (India) & Ors. vs Syndicate Bank
2014 Latest Caselaw 2919 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No. 112/2012

%                                                        3rd July, 2014

M/S RODENIA (INDIA) & ORS.                               ......Appellants
                   Through:              None.


                          VERSUS

SYNDICATE BANK                                           ...... Respondent
                          Through:       None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           This appeal impugns two orders/judgments. One is the main

judgment which has been passed on merits decreeing the suit of the

respondent-bank for recovery of moneys. The second order and which is

really the impugned order is dated 14.9.2006 by which the court below has

dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (CPC) on the ground that the application ought to have been filed

before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) inasmuch as on the date of

execution of the decree the amount would be in access of Rs.10 lacs.


FAO No.112/2012                                                  Page 1 of 3
 2.            The issue is covered against the appellant/defendant by the

judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Punjab &

Sind Bank Vs. Rama Minerals and Chemicals & Ors. (2003) 1 BC 388 and

which holds that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has to be filed

before the DRT and not before the civil court once the decretal amount

exceeds Rs.10 lacs. I am bound by the judgment of learned Single Judge of

this Court.


3.            It may also be noted that the Full Bench of the Kerala High

Court in the case of C.J. Glenny Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (2004) 1

BC 85 (FB) has held that once the amount due as on the date of filing of the

execution application would be more than Rs.10 lacs, not only the execution

application, but also all the incidental proceedings including for setting aside

the exparte judgment and decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, will have to be

filed before the DRT.


4.            The only mistake in the impugned order dated 14.9.2006 is that

the application has been dismissed whereas the application under Order 9

Rule 13 CPC should have been transferred for decision to the DRT.


5.            Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.9.2006 is modified by

ordering that instead of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC of the
FAO No.112/2012                                                     Page 2 of 3
 appellant being dismissed the same is transferred for decision to the

concerned DRT. Either of the parties may now take appropriate action in

accordance with this order by moving of an application before the concerned

DRT and the concerned DRT will thereafter summon the record of the suit

from the concerned civil court.


6.           It is clarified that in case the appellant wants to challenge the

judgment and decree on merits he is entitled to do so by filing the requisite

appeal in accordance with law, but in the present appeal against the order

dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, there can be no

challenge of a first appeal under Section 96 CPC, and which appeal also in

any case will have to be filed in accordance with law.


7.           Appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid

observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




JULY 03, 2014                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne