IMPORTANT POINT
In order to protect consistency and certainty of law laid down by superior courts, ideal condition for subordinate courts would be to follow decisions of superior courts.

Satish K.Agnihotri, J.—Questioning the legality and propriety of the interim order dated 22.09.2014 passed in O.A.No.23 of 2005 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, (for short the DRT), the petitioner has come up with the instant civil revision petition.

2. The challenge to the interim order is on the ground that the impugned interim order was passed without jurisdiction as the same amounts to sitting over the decision of this Court dated 25.2.2010 passed in C.R.P.No.3331 of 2009. The order is ex-facie illegal as the orders dated 2.2.2006 passed in I.A. No.586 of 2005 and 1.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.559 of 2005 were recalled without their being an application by either party and also without considering the settled propositions to recall the orders. The impugned interim order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to the effect that the matter was being heard on the issue of recalling of the orders dated 2.2.2006 passed in I.A. No.586 of 2005 and 1.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.559 of 2005. The impugned order is in complete violation of the order dated 21.7.2006 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (For short DRAT), Chennai in M.A.No.138 of 2006 and the order dated 01.10.2009 passed by the DRT in I.A.No.559 of 2005 confirmed by the order dated 25.2.2010 passed by this Court in CRP No.3331 of 2009 and also the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) Nos.3290-3292/2012.

3. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner moved the DRT in I.A.No.586 of 2005 in pending O.A.No.23 of 2005, seeking to substitute it as the applicant on the ground that the original applicant, ICICI Bank Ltd., has entrusted the assignment of debt to the petitioner. The learned Tribunal, by order dated 2.2.2006, allowed the application, directing substitution of the petitioner in place of the Bank. Thereagainst, an appeal, being M.A.No.138 of 2006 was filed by the respondent before the DRAT, which was disposed of, permitting the first respondent to raise all objections and defence by way of filing reply statement to the substitution ordered by the Tribunal. It was further directed that the DRT shall frame a specific issue as to whether the substitution of the petitioner, namely, M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., in the place of ICICI Bank Ltd. was valid.

4. The DRT, in the applications, being I.A.No.135 of 2006 filed by the petitioner and I.A.No.67 of 2005 filed by the first respondent, granted status quo in respect of the transfer of assets on 30.3.2007, till the disposal of the O.A. It was further directed that the parties would give full cooperation for disposal of the main O.A expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months. An appeal was preferred against the said order dated 30.3.2007 in M.A.No.83 of 2007. The DRAT, maintaining status quo, further directed the DRT to dispose of the main O.A.No.23 of 2005 within a period of three months. Thereagainst, a review application was filed before the DRAT, which was disposed of on 5.6.2008. The present petitioner, questioning the order dated 12.11.2007 and also the order dated 5.6.2008 passed by the DRAT, filed a civil revision petition being CRP (PD)No.1953 of 2008. A Division Bench of this court by order dated 15.7.2008, set aside the order dated 12.11.2007 and also the order dated 5.6.2008 passed by the DRAT and remitted back the matter for determination of the question relating to substitution and also the legality and propriety of transfer of mortgaged property in question after hearing the parties. Status quo was directed to be maintained by all parties.

5. The DRT, on remittance, reconsidered the entire issue and by order dated 1.10.2009 confirmed the substitution of the petitioner in place of original applicant, namely ICICI Bank Ltd. Being aggrieved, the first respondent preferred civil revision petition, being CRP(PD) No.3331 of 2009 on the file of this Court on 15.1