R.M Sharma, Presiding Officer:— Heard learned Counsel for both the parties on the Preliminary Issues No. 1 and 3. The preliminary issues read as under:
1. Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the suit and grant the reliefs prayed?
2. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action?
2. Learned Counsel for both the parties did not press Preliminary Issue No. 2 and agreed that Issue No. 2 be decided in the trial as it involves the mixed questions of facts and law.
3. The Counsel for the defendants has contended that in the suit prayer a decree has been sought for the total amount of Rs. 39,47,090.47 but break up of this amount has been shown in the prayer, as under:
(i) A judgment and decree for a sum of Rs. 22,74,735.00 be passed in favour of the applicant Bank and against the defendants No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 17 along with cost and interest.
(ii) A judgment and decree for a sum of Rs. 2,41,070.14 be passed in favour of the applicant Bank and against defendants No. 2, 4, 3, 7, 15 and 16 alongwith cost and interest.
(iii) A judgment and decree for a sum of Rs. 3,46,794.96 be passed in favour of the applicant Bank and against the defendants No. 8 and 9 alongwith defendants No. 2, 4 and 7 with cost and interest.
(iv) A judgment and decree for a sum of Rs. 3,78,311.49 be passed in favour of the applicant Bank and against the defendants No. 10, 11 alongwith defendants No. 4 and 7 alongwith cost and interest.
(v) A judgment and decree for a sum of Rs. 3,78,311.49 be passed in favour of the applicant Bank and against the defendants No. 12 and 13 alongwith defendants No. 2, 4 and 7, besides cost and interest.
(vi) A judgment & decree for a sum of Rs. 3,77,935.63 be passed in favour of the applicant Bank and against defendants No. 14 alongwith defendants No. 2, 4 and 7 besides cost and interest.
4. Therefore, in view of Section 1 sub-section (2) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the suit for Rs. 10 lakhs and above can only be filed in the Tribunal and the present suit is not maintainable. In other words, the Counsel for the defendants contended that the suit should be treated as separate suit against each defendant and so treating the suit against each defendant is for an amount less than Rs. 10 lakhs which cannot be entertained by the Tribunal.
5. The argument at first (sic) may appear to be attractive but on deep probe, there is no substance in the contention of the Counsel for the defendants. On the reading of whole plaint, it is found that this is a consolidated claim against the defendants in respect of the debts secured against the same property. At this stage, it would be relevant to notice Section 67-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Section 67-A of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under:
“67-A: Mortgage when bound to bring one suit on several mortgages:
A mortgagee who holds two or more mortgages executed by the same mortgagor in respect of each of which he has a right to obtain the same kind of decree under Section 67, and who sues to obtain such decree on any one of the mortgages, shall, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, be bound to sue on all the mortgages in respect of which the mortgage money has become due.”
6. On plain reading of this section, it can be said without debate, that a consolidated claim as made by the Bank is permissible. There appears no mis-joinder of cause of action and common question of law and fact arises which also warrant the permissible course of filing suit for a consolidated amount as done by the applicant Bank in the present case. It avoids multiplicity of the suit and saves the litigation costs to the parties also and saves the time of the Tribunal.
In the light of foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the suit is maintainable before the Tribunal and has jurisdiction to try the same. Therefore, issues are decided in favour of the applicant Bank.
The case be puts up on 25.4.1997 for evidence.
Appeal allowed.