Ashok Bhan, J.@mdashKarnataka Bank Limited-respondent 2 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Bank'') filed O.A. No. 511 of 1997 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, the ''Tribunal'') seeking issuance of a recovery certificate jointly and severally against all the respondents for payment of Rs. 62,89,040/- with interest at 24% p.a. compounded quarterly from 12-12-1996 to date of payment and on default for sale of mortgage property described in the schedule to the application. M/s. ACE Pack Containers Private Limited-first respondent in the proceedings was the debtor, respondents 2 to 6 before the Tribunal were its Directors and the 7th respondent (appellant herein) was the guarantor. According to the Bank, the appellant had executed two letters of guarantee dated 18-6-1993 and 8-12-1993 in favour of the Bank and it also executed a memorandum of deposit of title deeds in regard to the property described in the schedule to the Bank on 18-6-1993 and 8-12-1993.
2. Respondents were served. Appellant entered appearance before the Tribunal and contested the matter. In the written statement filed by the appellant, the plea taken is that he had no personal liability and the guarantee was limited to the amounts mentioned in the guarantee letters and also restricted to the value of the residential houses which were offered as security to the mortgagee. He had also mentioned that he had no objection to the recovery of the amount due against the suit schedule property which had been secured by him in favour of the Bank.
3. Appellant filed 3 interlocutory applications:
(a) I.A. I seeking a direction to the Bank for discovery and for production of the documents, letters, orders etc., listed in detail as Sl. Nos. (ii) to (xviii) in the affidavit filed in support of the application and furnish copies thereof to him.
(b) I.A. II seeking dispensation of his presence on 6-3-1998 and on subsequent dates of hearing, until the matter is posted for evidence.
(c) I.A. IV requesting the Tribunal to consider the preliminary objection raised by him in the supporting affidavit, before recording evidence in the suit, and dismiss the suit against him with costs.
4. Tribunal heard all the three I.As. and rejected them by a common order dated 31-1-2000. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 6744 of 2000 seeking quashing of the order dated 31-1-2000. On behalf of the Bank, apart from merits, it was contended that remedy by way of an appeal is available and therefore, the writ petition be not entertained. Learned Single Judge over ruled this objection and held that where the order is arbitrary or not passed on material evidence, the Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Bank has not challenged this finding of the Single Judge.
5. Learned Single Judge partly accepted the writ petition. Order of the Tribunal dismissing I.A. I was quashed. It was held that the Tribunal could not have summarily rejected I.A. I for discovery and production of the documents. The documents sought were specific and were required to be discovered and produced to determine whether the appellant is due personally for the entire amount or only to the amounts mentioned in the guarantee letters by enforcing the mortgage. I.A. I was allowed. Order of the Tribunal qua I.As. II and IV was upheld.
6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition qua I.As. II and IV, the present appeal has been filed.
7. During the course of arguments, appellant who has appeared in person did not press the appeal regarding I.A. II. He pressed the appeal regarding the order passed on I.A. IV only. As the appeal on I.A. II was not pressed, the order passed by the Single Judge regarding I.A. II is affirmed.
8. In I.A. IV, appellant has prayed that for the reason stated in the supporting affidavit, the Tribunal may dispose of the preliminary objections raised in the affidavit before recording evidence in the suit and dismiss the suit against the appellant with cost or pass any such orders as deemed fit proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case. There are as many as 7 respondents in the original application before the Tribunal. The Bank seeks to make all the 7 respondents liable jointly and severally. According to the Bank, the appellant being the guarantor is liable for the entire amount due to it. On the other hand, the appellant contends that his liability has to be restricted only to the extent of security offered by him and no personal liability can be fastened on him by relying on the letters of guarantee and other documents executed by him. The Bank disputes this position.
9. The question therefore is whether the Tribunal ought to have considered the question of liability of the appellant as a preliminary issue. For determining this, the disputed question whether the appellant should be made liable for the entire dues or only to the extent of value of the property has to be determined and for that, evidence has to be recorded. Even if the appellant has a good ease on merits as contended by him, the appellant cannot insist that the said question should be decided as a preliminary question. In I.A. I, appellant had sought discovery and production of 18 documents by the Bank. If the question could be decided on oral arguments only, then, the appellant would not have sought the discovery and production of a large number of documents by the Bank.
10. Tribunal is constituted under the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the "Act"). Subject to the rules that may be framed by the Central Government and the rules and regulations that may be framed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal is at liberty to regulate its own procedure. As per Section 22 of the Act, the provisions of the CPC do not apply to the proceedings before the Tribunal and the Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Tribunal has the power to regulate its own procedure. There is no procedure on framing of issues. Refusal of the Tribunal to consider the preliminary objections as preliminary issues does not call for interference.
11. Assuming that the Tribunal was required to frame the issues and the CPC was applicable, even then, Order 14, Rule 2 mandates that the Court is required to pronounce judgment on all issues simultaneously notwithstanding the fact that a case could be disposed of on a preliminary issue. Normally all issues should be decided while disposing of the suit. The amendment in Order 14, Rule 2 of the CPC by the Amendment Act of 1976 provides that notwithstanding that a case may be decided on a preliminary issue, the Court shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 can pronounce judgment on all issues. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 creates an exception where a suit can be disposed of on a question of law only. The two exceptions are regarding jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. In other words, it means that only those issues of law which go to determine the suit should be tried as preliminary issues and not others. Otherwise, the Court is required to pronounce judgment on all issues together. The preliminary objections which the appellant seeks to get decided as preliminary issues do not fall in the exceptions created under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14.
12. Object of the rule is to avoid a piecemeal decision on issues which leads to unnecessary delays and filing of appeals and revisions. Experience shows that piecemeal decision on issues leads to the unnecessary delay in the disposal of the suit. Only those issues can be tried as preliminary issues which determine the suit itself. In the present case, the decision on preliminary objections do not lead to determination of the entire suit and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed I.A. IV. Single Judge is right in upholding the order of the Tribunal on I.A. IV.
13. The findings recorded by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge are upheld for the reasons stated hereinbefore. No merit. Dismissed.
