BANK OF BARODA vs Parbhubhai Tandel on 16 April 2026

**JUDGMENT**

1. 1. The Applicant has filed the present Execution Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.32,49,412.92 with further interest thereon @ 15% p.a. from 10/05/2006 till full realization and for other incidental reliefs.

2. 2. It is the case of the Applicant that the Applicant Bank had filed Special Civil Suit No.107 of 1996 against the Defendants in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,57,789.15 plus interest and costs. Thereafter the Hon'ble Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad vide Judgment passed on 02/09/2002 has decreed the suit in favour of the Applicant Bank and jointly and severally against the Defendants for a sum of Rs.7,57,789.15 together with running interest on the said amount @ 15% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till realization as also costs of the suit. However, the Defendants have failed and neglected to pay the decretal dues of the Applicant Bank and hence, the Applicant Bank has filed the present Application for execution of the decree passed by Civil Court on 02/09/2002. She further submitted that as on 10/05/2006, a sum of Rs.32,49,412.92 is due and payable jointly and severally by the Defendants to the Applicant Bank. The said

Defendants are also liable to pay further interest thereon @ 15% p.a. from 10/05/2006 till realization.

1. 3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the decree passed by Ld. Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad on 02/09/2002 in Special Civil Suit No.107 of 1996.

2. 4. On perusal of record, it appears that the Applicant Bank has declared vide purshis dated 27/10/2010 (Exh.A/17) that the process of this Tribunal issued against Defendant No.3 has been received back with the endorsement "expired". Thereafter, the Applicant Bank has sought time on various occasions to obtain Death Certificate of Defendant No.3 and the details of Defendant No.3's legal representatives to bring them on record. However, the Applicant Bank has till date neither produced Death Certificate of Defendant No.3 nor has brought the legal representatives of Defendant No.3 on record.

3. 5. It is required to be noted that **DRT does not act as an executing court** for civil decrees. Instead, it must convert such decrees into Recovery Certificates under Section 31A before initiating recovery proceedings. The RDB Act does not empower DRTs to execute decrees passed by civil courts directly. Instead, it provides a mechanism for recovery through *Recovery Certificates*. This certificate is treated as if it were passed by the DRT itself.

4. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the present Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate deserves to be allowed. Hence the following order is passed:

**ORDER**

1. (A) The present Execution Application is hereby allowed and stands disposed of accordingly.

2. (B) The Defendants are directed to pay a sum of **Rs.32,49,412.92 (Rupees: Thirty Two Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Twelve & Paise Ninety Two only)** being decretal dues, as per decree passed by Ld.

Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad on 02/09/2002 in Special Civil Suit No.107 of 1996, jointly and severally to the Applicant Bank within 30 days from the date of this order along with simple interest thereon @15% p.a. as well from the date of filing of the present Execution Application till the date of realization along with cost and expenses.

- (C) Ld. Recovery Officer is directed to take into consideration the alleged fact of death of Defendant No.3 while executing the Recovery Certificate being issued under this Order.

- (D) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the mortgaged immovable property, which is more particularly described in Schedule of the decree dated 02/09/2002. If there is any shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of other personal movable and immovable properties of the Defendants.

- (E) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad.

- (F) The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/assets without first paying the claim of the Applicant Bank.

- (G) The Registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue the free copy of the order and be sent to both the parties in compliance of Rule 16 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rule 1993.

- (H) File be consigned to records.

(Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay) Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Ahmedabad

\*ykb\*