V.K. TAHILRAMANI, M. DURAISWAMY, JJ.

1. The petitioners have filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings in R.A. No. 28 of 2015, dated 14.05.2018 on the file of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and to quash the same.

1.1 It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent bank filed a suit in O.S. No. 167 of 1982 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppathur, North Arcot District for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,21,905.38 [Rupees seventeen lakhs twenty one thousand nine hundred and five and thirty eight paise only] and the Trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 12.04.1993 giving four months time to the petitioners to pay the decreed amount. Further, in the preliminary decree, it has been stated that if the petitioners fail to pay the decreed amount within the stipulated time, the respondent bank would be at liberty to apply for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and if there be deficiency in the realization of the amount, then, directed to recover the sum from the petitioners personally.

1.2 The respondent bank filed an application in O.A. No. 253 of 2004 on 09.08.2004 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai for the issuance of recovery certificate as per the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No. 167 of 1982 together with interest at the rate of 19.5% per annum. The said Original Application was subsequently transferred to the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai and renumbered as O.A. No. 305 of 2007. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, by order dated 23.11.2012, dismissed the Original Application finding that the claim made by the respondent bank is barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

1.3 Aggrieved over the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, the respondent bank filed an appeal in R.A. No. 28 of 2013 on the file of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and the Appellate Tribunal after taking into consideration the case of both sides, set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and allowed the appeal. While setting aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal observed that the banks are the custodian of public money, which they receive from a common man on interest and in such a situation, the recovery made by the bank should not be rejected.

2. On a perusal of the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No. 167 of 1982, it is clear that the Trial Court had quantified the amount payable by the petitioners and also granted four months time to them to pay the said amount. However, the petitioners have not paid the decreed amount till this date.

3. It is not in dispute that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai was constituted on 07.11.1996. The Trial Court had quantified the amount payable by the petitioners even in the preliminary decree itself and granted four months time for paying the said amount and in the event of the petitioners failing to comply with the said directions, gave liberty to the respondent-bank to file a final decree application.

4. Mr. S. Kothandaraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the claim made by the respondent-bank in the year 2004 is hit by the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, therefore, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III Chennai. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments reported in CDJ 2000 SC 1649 [Monotosh Kumar Mitra v. Amarendranath Shaw (dead) and others] and CDJ 1993 SC 1015 [K. Paramaswaran Pillai (Dead) v. K. Sumathi Alias Jesis Jessie Jacquiline and Another] wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the application for passing of the final decree is governed by residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, under which, an application for passing of final decree has to be filed within three years from the d