The Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal has limited jurisdiction to refuse registration of an original application, and cannot consider the merits of the case or questions of maintainability.

Vasanti A. Naik, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission as a notice for final disposal was issued to the respondents and all the respondents are duly served.

2. The issue involved in this writ petition pertains to the jurisdiction of the Registrar to refuse to register an original application under the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 on the ground of tenability.

3. The petitioner nationalised bank had granted financial assistance to a limited company and Ms Avantika Chauhan was a guarantor to the said transaction. The principal borrower, the limited company defaulted in making the payment of dues to the petitioner Bank and an original application, bearing No.21 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner against the principal borrower and the guarantors including Ms Avantika Chauhan. The original application was decreed in favour of the petitioner Bank and a recovery certificate was issued. Since the nonapplicants failed to pay the decretal amount, the property in question was auctioned in the recovery proceedings for a consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/- . When the proceedings for execution of the decree were in progress, the petitioner Bank had invoked the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in respect of the mortgage of the property by guarantor Ms Avantika Chauhan in favour of Smt. Shila Gaikwad the respondent No.2 herein. The said original application was dismissed and an appeal filed by the petitioner-Bank against the order in the original application was also dismissed. It was observed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal that the petitioner-Bank could take steps for recovery of the amount refunded to Smt. Shila Gaikwad against the indemnity bond and enforce its right before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal as Smt. Shila Gaikwad was not a party in the matter before the Tribunal. After the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order rejecting the original application, the petitioner-Bank presented the original application, bearing lodging No.201 of 2013, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- against Smt. Shila Gaikwad and the respondent No.3 in this petition. The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, however, refused to register the original application on the basis of the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 13/04/2011 permitting the petitioner-Bank to take steps for recovery of the amount refunded to Smt. Shila Gaikwad before a Civil Court and not before the Tribunal.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by referring to Rule 5 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 that the Registrar did not have jurisdiction to refuse to register the original application filed by the petitioner on the ground of maintainability. It is stated that the Registrar could not have considered the merits of the case and the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, dated 13/04/2011 while refusing to register the original application. It is stated that in view of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1993, the Registrar could only scrutinise the original application to consider whether there is a formal defect in the original application and grant an opportunity to the applicant to rectify the defect. It is stated that while refusing to register the original application presented by the petitioner-Bank, the Registrar entered into the merits of the matter and did not refuse to register the same on the ground that it was defective and the applicant had failed to rectify the defect within the time allowed by the Registrar.

5. Shri Darda, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Registrar, supported the order and submitted that the Registrar was justified in considering the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, dated 13/04/2011 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-Bank and pe