P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Housing And Urban Development Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Sudha Simhal - (High Court of Madhya Pradesh) (11 Jul 2022)

DRT is also a civil court and its order would operate as res judicata

MANU/MP/1671/2022

Civil

Present civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") has been filed by the applicants challenging the order passed by Additional District Judge, whereby their application under Section 11 read with 151 of CPC has been dismissed. The trial Court by impugned order dismissed the application of the applicants holding that, the Tribunal is not civil Court and, therefore, suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff is maintainable.

Learned counsel for the applicants/HUDCO submitted that, trial Court erred in rejecting the application under Section 11 read with 151 of CPC. The DRT has already passed judgment, and recovery certificate has also been issued in favour of the applicants and, therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the civil suit filed by the Respondent. Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is having an overriding effect over other laws and, therefore, trial Court cannot take contrary view and hold that DRT is not a Civil Court.

It is admitted that loan was taken by the Respondent from the applicants/HUDCO and not repaid by her. All the relevant documents have been signed by the Respondent in favour of the HUDCO, but huge amount is still due against the respondent. All the relevant issues were properly adjudicated by the DRT. The judgment passed by the DRT has not been challenged by the Respondent before any appellate forum. The judgment has been passed by the DRT under the special provision of law viz. Recovery of Debts Due and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. It is apparently clear that, before DRT, the counsel for the Respondent appeared on number of times, but he did not file the written statement. Only thereafter the judgment has been passed against the Respondent. In original application, the main and substantial questions were same regarding the liability of the respondent for repayment of huge loan amount.

DRT is also a civil Court and its order would operate as res judicata. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable. The trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the applicants under Section 11 read with 151 of CPC and dismissed the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff by holding that suit is barred by principles of res judicata. In the result, the revision is allowed.

Tags : PRINCIPLES   RES JUDICATA   DRT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved