Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. According to the petitioner, he is a guarantor in respect of a loan taken by respondent nos. 2 & 3 from Punjab National Bank/respondent no. 1. He
is aggrieved by the order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun on 24.10.2019, whereby Original Application filed by the bank was allowed
ex-parte against the petitioner as well as the principal borrower and decree for recovery of outstanding amount was passed.
2. According to the petitioner, he filed a review application against the said order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun under Rule 5A of the
DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, however, review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 11.03.2020. Feeling aggrieved by these two
orders, petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had filed written statement in the Original Application; while, the same was pending before
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow and upon transfer of the Original Application from Lucknow to Dehradun, supplementary counter affidavit dated
10.07.2019 was also filed by the petitioner, however, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun erred in observing that despite service, petitioner did not
appear in the proceedings. He further submits that the review application filed by the petitioner was also cursorily rejected only on the ground of
limitation, although, there is only seven days delay.
4. Be that as it may, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is a self-contained code, which provides for a forum of
recovery of dues to banks and financial institutions. Section 20 of the said Act provides that every order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal under
Section 19 shall be appealable before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v.
MSTC Limited reported in (2020) 13 SCC 618 has held as under:-
“23. Section 22(1) of the Act makes it clear that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the
Code of Civil Procedure, making it clear thereby that Order 47 Rule 7 would not apply to the Tribunal. Also, in view of Section 20, which applies to all
applications that may be made, including applications for review, and orders being made therein being subject to appeal, it is a little difficult to
appreciate how Order 47 Rule 7 could apply at all, given that Section 20 of the RDB Act is part of a complete and exhaustive code. Section 34 of the
Act makes it clear that the 1993 Act, (and, therefore, Section 20), will have overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force, which
includes the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court, in holding that no appeal would be maintainable against the dismissal of the review petition, and
that therefore a writ petition would be maintainable, was clearly in error on this count also.â€
5. Since the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Debts Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993, therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed on
the ground of alternative remedy with liberty to the petitioner to approach the forum available to him under Section 20 of the Act. It shall be open for
the petitioner to raise all the contention before the Appellate Tribunal.
