Petitioners, borrowers of the respondent 3 Cooperative

Bank are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing

the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery

Tribunal 3 1, Bengaluru, at Annexure-A whereby their SA

No.265/2022 has been negatived. In the said second

appeal, petitioners had called in question the coercive

proceedings of recovery essentially on the ground of

territorial

jurisdiction,

contending

that

the

properties

furnished by way of security for the repayment of loan in

question have been situate within the territorial limits of

Debts Recovery Tribunal-2.

2.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and having perused too bulky petition, this Court

declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the

reasoning

of

the

learned

Presiding

Officer,

DRT-1,

Bengaluru. The Apex Court in SETH HIRALAL PATNI vs. SRI

KALINATH, AIR 1962 SC 199 has observed <&it is well

4

settled that the objection as to local jurisdiction of the Court

to try a case does not stand on the same footing as an

objection to the competence of the Court to try a case.

Competence of the Court to try a case goes to the very root

of the jurisdiction and where it is lacking, it is a case of

inherent lack of jurisdiction. & This principle has been given

a statutory recognition by enactments like Sec. 21 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908&=

3.

Petitioners fairly admit of the borrowing of

money and the outstanding amount runs into a few crores.

They do not dispute as to the subject property being the

security for repayment of the said loans. With this, their

fairness ends and rest all the things pertain to the domain of

incongruity. Their loan account having been classified as

<Non-performing Assets= on 25.09.2017, they were issued a

Demand Notice dated 03.09.2018 under Section 13(2) of

SARFAESI Act, 2002 for the payment of Rs.4,64,79,251/- as

on 31.08.2018. This was followed by Section 13(4) Notice,

5

informing them of symbolic possession being with the Bank

w.e.f. 11.10.2017 itself. Petitioners9 challenge to the same

in SA No.345/2018 came to be disposed off, on the

possession notice being withdrawn on 03.12.2018 followed

by another such notice 04.02.2019. the same was put in

challenge before DRT-2 vide SA No.343/2019 which came to

be dismissed on 12.02.2021.

4.

The auction sale was scheduled to be held on

16.04.2019 and this was also came to be challenged by the

petitioners in SA No.139/2019. Petitioners were troubling

the lender Bank with one or the other case filed in series.

They

had

filed

WP.No.1241/2020,

WP.No.8925/2020,

WP.No.9584/2020, WP.No.15510/2020, WP.No.19863/2021,

WP.No.5009/2021,

WA.No.470/2021,

WP.No.4879/2022

(still pending), laying a challenge to the various stages of

recovery proceedings. The conduct of the petitioners only

shows that they want to defeat or defraud the lender Bank

with one or the other way and in any circumstances. This

6

very conduct disentitles them to any relief at the hands of

constitutional court.

5.

The vehement contention of learned counsel for

the petitioners that the territorial jurisdiction would lie only

with DRT-2, Bengaluru and therefore, the entire coercive

action at the hands of DRT-1, Bengaluru, does not merit

countenance for more than one reason: firstly, the issue

relating to territorial jurisdiction does not go to root of the

matter, said the Apex Court more than half a century ago in

SETH HIRALAL, supra, unless the same has prejudiced the

litigant. Despite vehement submissions, no prejudice is

demonstrated because of the proceedings being treated at

the hands of other DRT, assuming that it did not have

territorial jurisdiction. The DRT has given cogent reasons for

passing the impugned order which reads as under:

<In the result, SA No.265 of 2022 may be

returned to the Applicants for filing before the

appropriate forum within 30 days from the date

of return of the matter. Necessary entry with

regard to payment of fees may also be made on

7

the appli