The Debts Recovery Tribunal must ensure that recovery orders are directed only against parties legally liable under the decree, and non-parties cannot be held accountable.

JUDGMENT :

(N. NAGARESH, J.)

The petitioners, who are the wife and children of John J. Chackola, have filed this Original Petition seeking to set aside Ext.P9 order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam and consequently dismiss O.A. No.11 of 2008 as against the petitioners.

2. The petitioners state that father of the said John J. Chackola, late Joseph J. Chackola, was a guarantor to the credit facility availed by M/s. United Cochin Steel Re- Rollers Private Ltd. from the Syndicate Bank, which is now merged with the Canara Bank. After the demise of Joseph J.Chackola, the Syndicate Bank filed O.S. No.168 of 1979 in the 3^rd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit was filed to recover Rs.27,64,250.81. The suit was decreed on 30.03.1985, allowing the Bank to recover Rs.27,64,250.81 with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum, personally from the 2^nd defendant (Samuel John) and from defendants 3 to 5 to the extent of the properties inherited by them from Joseph J. Chackola, and also by way of sale of plaint A and B scheduled property.

3. M/s. United Cochin Steel Re-rollers Private Limited filed A.S. No.201 of 1988 before the High Court. No order was given by the Court staying execution of the Decree. Therefore, the time for execution of the Decree started running from 30.03.1985, contend the petitioners. Pending the appeal, the 2^nd defendant Samuel John passed away. The petitioners state that as per order dated 05.06.1995, the Court recorded that the 2^nd defendant in the suit died and that no legal representatives are to be impleaded. Thereafter, the 6^th respondent (who was the 5^th defendant in the Suit) was also removed from the party array in the appeal as per order dated 25.03.1988. Since the legal representatives of the 3^rd respondent were not impleaded in the appeal and since the 6^th respondent was removed from the party array, what was pending before the Court was only an incompetent appeal abated by operation of law, contend the petitioners.

4. The petitioners state that none of the parties to the appeal did point out the abatement of the appeal, to this Hon’ble Court. While so, Sri.John J. Chackola, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and who was the 3^rd defendant in the Suit and 4^th respondent in the appeal, also died on 08.03.1994. By the time, the appeal had abated and no steps were taken to set aside the abatement and to implead the petitioners. Ultimately, without noticing that the appeal had already been abated, this Court heard the appeal and the appeal was dismissed on 15.10.1998. Ext.P3 Decree passed in an appeal which had already abated, is non-est. The petitioners herein are not parties to the Decree.

5. The Bank on 30.11.2007 filed Ext.P4 O.A.under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 , before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam. The O.A. was filed arraying Annamma Chackola, the 5^th respondent in the appeal as 1^st defendant, Joseph Chackola who was removed from the party array in the appeal as 2^nd defendant and the petitioners herein who were not parties either in the Original Suit or in the appeal as legal representatives of John J. Chackola. None of the legal representatives of late Samuel John, were arrayed in the O.A.

6. The petitioners state that an application filed under Section 19 (1) read with Section 31A for recovery of an amount under a Decree or Order passed by any Court before the commencement of the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and other Financial Institutions (Amendment) Act, 2020 and that has yet not been executed, is an original proceedings and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is only to issue a Certificate of Recovery to a Recovery Officer in terms of the Decree and on receipt of a Certificate, the Recovery Officer shall proceed to recover the amounts as if it was a Certificate in respect of a debt recoverable under the Act.

7. The petitioners would further submit that in calculating the limitation for filing Ext.P4 O.A.