1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.1328 OF 2008              [Arising out of SLP(C)5783 of 2006]

K. KRISHNA KUMAR                                         Petitioner(s)

                       VERSUS

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM & ORS                 Respondent(s)

      O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appellant claims to be interested in the property which was the subject matter of

the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam.  Aggrieved

by an order passed by the Recovery Officer, the appellant filed an appeal, being No.2/2005,

before the said tribunal, which according to the appellant is the second appeal preferred on

account of the fact that the earlier appeal had not been registered.  The said appeal was filed

without payment of the requisite court fees, and after considering the submissions regarding

the question as to whether such court fees were payable, the tribunal held that the said court

2

fees were payable and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

The  appellant,  thereafter,  filed  a  writ  petition  before  the  Kerala  High  Court

questioning  the  order  passed  by  the  tribunal.   The  High  Court  without  going  into  the

question raised, directed sale of the property at the earliest  with observations that if  the

appellant had any share in the property,  he would be entitled to the same from the sale

proceeds after such sale.

The said order has been challenged in this appeal, and it appears that by our order

dated 3/3/2006, we had recorded that the appellant was ready and willing to pay the court

fees as demanded by the Debts Recovery Tribnunal, and that the same would be deposited

within two weeks from the date of the order.  Subsequently, on 24/03/2006 when the matter

was taken up, it was submitted that the entire court fees, as demanded had been deposited by

the appellant by cheque dated 20/03/2006, which fact is admitted by the bank.

In such circumstances, we are inclined to allow the appeal and besides setting aside

the order passed by the High Court, we are also inclined to restore the appeal before the

Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Having regard to the above, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the

High Court and further direct that   Appeal No.2/2005 and any other connected appeal be

restored for determination on merits.   

There will be no orders as to costs.

3

......................J.              (ALTAMAS KABIR)

......................J.              (J.M. PANCHAL)

New Delhi; February 15, 2008.