( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 4-10-2002 passed by Debts Recovery tribunal, Allahabad, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for an order that section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993 (in short 'act of 1993) has been dismissed on the ground that it is not applicable in the present case, the present petition has been filed.

( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 bank filed a suit against the petitioners on 10-3-1995 for realization of an amount of Rs. 94,20,553. 36 paise in the court of District Judge, Indore. After coming into force of Act of 1993, the suit was transferred under Section 31 of the Act to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur and was registered as T. A. No. 1015/98. The suit was contested by the petitioner before the district Court, Indore as well as Debts Recovery tribunal, Jabalpur. After framing of the issues and recording of evidence vide judgment dated 24-2-2002, the suit was decreed against the petitioners for a sum of rs. 20 lacs along with interest @ 15% per annum with effect from 10-5-1995. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 20 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at allahabad. Since the suit was decreed in part, therefore, respondent No. 1 was also aggrieved by the Judgment and also preferred an appeal before the Tribunal at allahabad. Since as per Section 21 of the act of 1993, it is the mandatory requirement of law to deposit 75% of the amount if the appeal is being filed by the borrower, unless the appellate authority waives or refuses the amount, therefore, an application was filed by the petitioners wherein it was prayed that at the time of filing of the suit i. e. on 10-5-1995, the Act of 1993 has come in force in madhya Pradesh w. e. f. 7-4-1998, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get an order of declaration to the effect that provisions of Section 21 of the Act are not applicable to the petitioners relating to deposit of 75% of the amount. The application was contested by the respondent No. 1. Vide order dated 24-10-2002, the application was dismissed against which the present petition has been filed.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners submits that, under Section 96 C. P. C. it was the statutory right of the petitioners to prefer an appeal and since on the date of filing of the suit, there was no provision under which the petitioners were liable to deposit 75% of the amount, therefore, at the subsequent stage no enactment can curtail the right of the petitioners which was available to the petitioners at the time of filing of the suit. For this contention, reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Delhi Cloth General mills Co. v. Income Tax Commissioner, delhi, AIR 1927 Privy Council 242, wherein the Privy Council has observed as under :

"while provisions of a statute dealing merely with matters of procedure may properly, unless that construction be textually inadmissible, have retrospective effect attributed to them, provisions which touch a right in existence at the passing of the statute are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment. Provisions which, if applied retrospectively, would deprive of their existing finality orders which, when the stature came into force, were final, are provisions which touch existing rights. "

( 4 ) FURTHER reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Ram Singha v. Shankar Dayal, AIR 1928 Allahabad 437, wherein Allahabad High Court has held as under-

"an appeal is a mere continuance of the original proceedings initiated by the filing of the plaint, and the right to continue that proceeding cannot be affected by a new Act, unless it expressly says so. It was further held that-Right to appeal to the Court of the District Judge was governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit, and not by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document