Back
2006 Supreme(Gau) 1041
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.
Biplab Kanti Pal etc. etc.
Vs.
State Bank of India and etc.
Decided On : 24.11.2006
The Tripura Public Demand Recovery Act, 2000, provides a self-contained mechanism for the recovery of public demand, excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts, and does not render decrees obtained in civil suits for recovery of public demand inexecutable.
Headnote:
Civil Courts Jurisdiction - Tripura Public Demand Recovery Act, 2000 - Section 38 - [KEYWORD] - Recovery of Public Demand - Section 38 - [38] - The judgment discusses the interpretation and application of Section 38 of the Tripura Public Demand Recovery Act, 2000, which abates pending suits for recovery of public demand in civil courts. The court analyzes the legislative intent and concludes that the Act provides a self-contained mechanism for the recovery of public demand, excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts. The court also determines that the abatement of suits is without prejudice to the right of recovery under the Act or any other law in force, excluding civil suits. The judgment further clarifies that the Act does not render decrees obtained in civil suits for recovery of public demand inexecutable, as the legislative intent was to provide a speedy and exclusive mechanism for recovery.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment involves two Civil Revision Petitions related to the Tripura Public Demand Recovery Act, 2000. In one case, the court held that a bank's suit was not maintainable due to the Act, while in the other case, the court allowed the execution of a decree obtained by the bank despite the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tripura Public Demand Recovery Act, 2000, provides a self-contained mechanism for the recovery of public demand, excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts. It concluded that pending suits for recovery of public demand in civil courts stand abated under Section 38 of the Act, without prejudice to the right of recovery under the Act or any other law in force, excluding civil suits. The court also determined that the Act does not render decrees obtained in civil suits for recovery of public demand inexecutable.
Issues: The fundamental questions considered by the court were: (i) the principles governing the exclusion of civil courts' jurisdiction, (ii) whether suits for recovery of dues by a bank stand abated and barred by the provisions of the Act, and (iii) whether provisions for abatement of pending suits in the Act necessarily abate execution of decrees obtained by banks in civil suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles governing the exclusion of civil courts' jurisdiction as summarized in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. It analyzed the legislative intent behind the Tripura Public Demand Recovery Act, 2000, and concluded that the Act provides a self-contained mechanism for the recovery of public demand, excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts. The court interpreted Section 38 and determined that pending suits for recovery of public demand in civil courts stand abated under the Act, without prejudice to the right of recovery under the Act or any other law in force, excluding civil suits. The court also clarified that the Act does not render decrees obtained in civil suits for recovery of public demand inexecutable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both revision petitions and upheld the orders of the lower court, concluding that the Tripura Public Demand Recovery Act, 2000, provides a self-contained mechanism for the recovery of public demand, excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts, and does not render decrees obtained in civil suits for recovery of public demand inexecutable.
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions have raised questions of law, which are closely inter-connected, both these revision petitions, on the request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The facts giving rise to present revision petition may, in brief, be set out as under:
(i) In Civil Revision Petition No. 11/2005, having obtained a decree, when the opposite party herein, which is a bank, put, as a decree holder, the said decree into execution, Execution (M) Case No. 8/2004 arose, in the said execution proceeding, an application was made, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the petitioner herein, who la the Judgment-debtor, objecting to the execution of the decree on the ground that on coming into force of the Tripura Public Demand Recovery Act, 2000 (in short, the said Act), the decree has been rendered inexecutable, for the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts stands ousted by the said Act in respect of recovery of money due to the bank, This was objected to by the decree holder-opposite party. By order, dated 3-3-2005, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala, has rejected the objection petition filed by the judgment-debtor. It is the order dated 3-3-2005, aforementioned, which stands impugned, in Civil Revision Petition No. 11/2005, by the judgment-debtor.
(ii) In Civil Revision Petition No. 12/2005, the petitioner herein, which is a bank, instituted, as plaintiff, Money Suit No. 34/2002 for realization of a sum of Rs. 99,713.78 from opposite party as defendant. The defendant appeared in the suit and contested the suit by filing written statement. When the suit was pending or recording evidence, the defendant filed an application seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that with the coming into force of the Tripura Public Demand Recovery Act, 2000 (in short, the said Act), the Civil Court's jurisdiction stands ousted in respect of money due to the bank and, hence, the suit cannot be allowed to proceed. Though the bank, as the plaintiff, filed its objection to the prayer for dismissal of the suit made by the petitioner, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Agartala, passed an Order, on 17-9-2003, dismissing the suit on the ground that since the suit relates to public demand, the civil suit in the face of the provisions of the said Act, is not maintainable. It is this order, dated 17-9-2003, which stands impugned, in Civil Revision Petition No. 12/2005, by the bank.
3. In short, while in CRP No. 11/2005, the learned Court below has held the bank's suit barred by the provisions of the said Act, it, on the other hand, held that notwithstanding the provisions of the said Act, a decree, already obtained by the bank, is executable.
4. I have heard Mr. S. Saha, learned Counsel, for the plaintiff-petitioner in CRP No. 12/2005, I have heard Mr. D.B. Sengupta, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Judgment-debtor-petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 11/2005, and Mr. S. Saha, learned Counsel for the Decree-Holder-Opposite Party in Civil Revision Petition No. 12/2005, and Mr. S. Deb, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Defendant-Opposite Party in CRP No. 12/2005.
5. Presenting the case on behalf of the bank, which is the plaintiff-petitioner in CRP No. 12/2005 and Decree-Holder-Opposite Party in CRP No. 11/2005, Mr. S. Saha, learned Counsel, has submitted that the learned Court below has committed serious error of jurisdiction in holding that the suit, instituted by the bank, is not maintainable inasmuch as the said Act has ousted the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court. For the purpose of coming to this conclusion, the learned Court below relies, points out Mr. Saha, on the provisions of Section 38 of the said Act. The reliance, so placed on Section 38, is, according to Mr. Saha, wholly incorrect inasmuch as neither Section 38 nor any other
