Anjuli Palo ORDER
Anjuli Palo, J.
1. This civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") has been filed by the applicants challenging the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the XIIth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 837-A/2014 whereby their application under Section 11 r/w 151 of CPC has been dismissed.
2. The respondent being proprietor of M/s. Nirman Sudha availed loan facility of Rs. 293.73 lacs from the applicants-Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited [hereinafter referred to as the "HUDCO"] for the purpose of construction of project.
3. In the year 2014, the respondent as plaintiff filed a civil suit being C.S. No. 837-A/2014 arraying the applicants as defendants for recovery of Rs. 34,90,940 alleging that HDCO charged excessive rate of interest than the agreed rate mentioned in sanction letter. The aforesaid civil suit is pending adjudication before XIIth ADJ, Bhopal.
4. The respondent failed to adhere to the financial discipline in repaying the loan amount, therefore, the HUDCO classified the loan account of respondent as NPA w.e.f. February, 2015 with an outstanding amount of Rs. 39.21 lacs. Since the respondent could not pay the outstanding dues, the applicants filed Original Application No. 115/2015 under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Instructions Act, 1993 for recovery of Rs. 41,04,137/- before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur [for brevity the "DRT"]. The DRT vide its judgment dated 16.3.2016 allowed the original application holding that HDCO is entitled to recovery of Rs. 41,04,137/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
5. The respondent thereafter filed Misc. Application No. 45/2016 for setting aside ex parte judgment dated 16.3.2016 which was dismissed by the DRT on 08.8.2017.
6. During pendency of Civil Suit No. 837-A/2014, in September, 2018 the applicants/defendants filed an application under section 11 r/w 151 of CPC claiming dismissal of the suit on the ground that DRT has already passed judgment in favour of the applicants making them entitled to recover the amount from the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent filed its reply to aforesaid application u/s. 11 r/w 151 CPC. The trial Court by impugned order dated 03.10.2018 dismissed the application of the applicants holding that the Tribunal is not civil Court and, therefore, suit of the respondent/plaintiff is maintainable.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants/HUDCO submitted that trial Court erred in rejecting the application under section 11 r/w 151 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. It ought to have been appreciated that the subject matter of civil suit is directly and substantially covered with the issue involved in O.A. No. 115/2015. Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is having an overriding effect over other laws and, therefore, trial Court cannot take c........