R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THIRD respondent-bank filed oa No. 88 of 1995 before the second respondent-tribunal against the first and second petitioners herein (borrower and guarantor respectively) under Section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993 ('act' for short ). The reliefs claimed in the said original application are. 1. Directing petitioners herein personally to pay the amounts mentioned in schedule 'c' to the application along with interest at 19. 75% per annum compounded quarterly;

( 2 ) DIRECTING sale of mortgaged immoveable property describedin 'b' schedule as to the application; and

( 3 ) AWARD costs of the proceedings including the fee paid to the tribunal and the advocates. 2. In schedule 'c' to the original application, the bank claimed two amounts i. e. , a sum of Rs. 4,28,881. 20 in regard to account No. Psl/gen. 5/1989 and a sum of Rs. 7,68,386/- due in regard to account No. Osl/ml/155/89. The total amount claimed is Rs. 11,97,267. 20. 3. The petitioners on entering appearance, made an application (ia No. Ii) for rejection of the bank's original application, as being barred by rule 10 of the debt recovery tribunal (procedure) rules, 1993 ('rules' for short), which reads as follows:petitioners contended that the application was filed on two causes of action; that the bank had averred two distinct and separate causes of action, the first in regard to a housing loan (account No. Psl/gen. 5/1989 for Rs. 2. 00 lakhs) and the second in regard to a vehicle loan (account No. Osl/ml. 155/1989 for Rs. 2. 5 lakhs); that the bank could not have filed a single application in regard to two separate causes of action and that the reliefs sought by the bank were not consequential to one another; that the amount claimed in respect of each of the two accounts was less than Rs. 10 lakhs and but for the fact that a single application was filed by clubbing the two claims, the debt recovery tribunal would not have jurisdiction to try the original application; that the bank had deliberately clubbed two separate causes of action to bring the claims within the jurisdiction of the tribunal and thereby avoid filing of two separate suits in a civil court.

( 4 ) THE tribunal has rejected ia No. Ii, by Order dated 14-7-1997 (annexure-b) holding that there was one security for both the loans advanced to the same borrower with the same guarantor and therefore the facts pleaded and prayer should be treated as disclosing a single cause of action. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition and sought quashing of the Order of the tribunal dated 14-7-1997 (annexure-b) and a direction to the tribunal to reject/return the application filed by the bank under Section 19 of the act.

( 5 ) THE bank contends that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, as an alternative remedy by way of appeal was available under Section 20 of the act. In the normal course, this petition was liable to be rejected, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. But, as the matter involves interpretation of rule 10 and its scope, affecting the very jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain the application, the petition deserves to be considered on merits and cannot be rejected at the threshold, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

( 6 ) IN the original application filed under Section 19, the bank, after referring to the advancing of the two loans and the amounts due, has pleaded that the borrower had mortgaged her property (described in schedule 'b' to the application) as security for one of the loans by depositing the title deeds and confirmed such deposit on 16-5-1989; that subsequently on 8-11-1989, the borrower addressed a letter dated 8-11-1989 confirming re-deposit of the title deeds, extending the mortgage by deposit of title deeds to the other loan also; and that thus, the two loans are covered by two mortgages created by the borrower in favour of the bank in respec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document