Quashed

Raju Majumder v. Punjab National Bank

DRAT18 Jul 2025MISC APPEAL/44/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal held that the Assistant Registrar lacks jurisdiction to allow secondary evidence; this power resides solely with the Learned Presiding Officer. The order on jurisdiction was set aside, leaving the admissibility issue open for the Presiding Officer to decide. The Tribunal directed the Respondent to provide photostat copies within 15 days and the lower court to d

What did the court decide?

Order of Assistant Registrar allowing secondary evidence quashed on jurisdictional grounds; Respondent directed to provide document copies within 15 days; OA directed to be decided expeditiously.

Raju Majumder versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Misc. .Appeal No.44 of 2025 -DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT

¶4

KOLKATA

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶6

Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 2025 (Arising out of O.A. No. 128 of 2017 in DRT Siliguri)

¶7

Sri Raju Majumder, son of Late Ratan Majumder, Madhan Mohan Para, P.O. & P.S. Dinhata, Ward No. 2, District Cooch Behar, West Bengal, Pin 736135.

¶8

Smt. Rita Majumder, daughter of Late Ratan Majumder, Madhan Mohan Para, P.O. & P.S. Dinhata, Ward No. 2, District Cooch Behar, West Bengal, Pin 7361135.

¶9

Smt. Mithu Majumder, wife of Late Ratan Majumder, Madhan Mohan Para, P.O. & P.S. Dinhata, Ward No. 2, District Cooch Behar, West Bengal, Pin 736135.

¶10

.…Appellant

¶11

-Versus-

¶12

Punjab National Bank, Dinhata Branch, Dinhata Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Dinhata, District Cooch Behar, West Bengal, Pin 736135.

¶13

Punjab National Bank service through the Authorized Officer, Circle Shastra Centre NJP (Siliguri), Hill Cart Road Siliguri, District Darjeeling. Pin 734001.

¶14

Counsel for Appellants Ms. Puja Bhupal, (virtual) Mr. Utpal Saha

¶15

Counsel for Respondents Ms. Aparajita Rao

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Misc..Appeal No.44 of 2025 -DRAT-Kolkata : 18^th July, 2025

¶19

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶20

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

2. Instant Appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order dated 21^st February, 2025 passed by Learned DRT Siliguri in I.A. 639 of 2024 in O.A. No. 128 of 2017 whereby Learned DRT disposed of the I.A. No. 639 of 2024 with a direction to the Bank to provide the true copies of Banking documents to the defendants in the O.A.

¶22

3. As would appear from the pleadings, O.A. No. 128 of 2017 [Punjab National Bank versus Ratan Majumder(since deceased) and Anr.] was filed by the Respondents herein for issuance of a Certificate to an extent of Rs. 13,62,166.08p. When the O.A. was filed an order was passed on 28.12.2017 by the Asstt. Registrar DRT Siliguri which is as under:

¶23

Matter is called out as per previous order.

¶24

Ld. Advocate Ashis Das and Mr. A. Banerjee, Law Officer, UBI appear for the Applicant Bank for verification of documents.

¶25

The Applicant Bank could not produce the original documents for verification as these original documents are misplaced due to shifting of bank premises and not traced out till date. Bank has filed a petition IA/316/2017 for secondary evidence relying upon certified copies of documents in place of original records. The petition is allowed u/s 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act 1872.

¶26

The documents on evidence are examined against certified copies which are exhibited from 1 to 17 at Page No.34 to 119. The certified copies are returned to the Applicant with the direction to produce the originals before this Tribunal as and when called for.

¶27

The Applicant Bank has not submitted the translated copies of Bangla Titled Deeds of mortgaged properties. Hence, the Applicant bank is directed to submit/file the translated copies of Bangla Title Deeds of mortgaged property in English/Hindi version within 15 days positively.

¶28

¶29

Misc..Appeal No.44 of 2025 -DRAT-Kolkata The application is registered as Case No. OA. 128 of 2017 reckoning the limitation from the date of filing the application in DRT-II Kolkata i.e. 27.01.2017.

¶30

Place the application before Ld. Presiding Officer on 17.01.2018 for order of issuance of summons. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant is directed to appear before Ld. Presiding Officer on 17.01.2018. Copy of this order be given to the Applicant.

¶31

4. Thereafter, I.A. No. 639 of 2024 was filed by the defendants for a direction to the Bank to produce the original documents. The copies of which has been annexed with the O.A. It is undisputed fact that the original documents were never produced either before the Asstt. Registrar or before the Learned Presiding Officer of the DRT. However, the Asstt. Registrar recorded an observation that by virtue of I.A. No. 316 of 2017 a prayer was made for taking secondary evidence on record which was allowed by the Asstt. Registrar.

¶32

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the Asstt. Registrar has no jurisdiction to allow the secondary evidence. Rather, it is within the jurisdiction of the Learned Presiding Officer DRT. The findings recorded by the Asstt. Registrar are contrary to the provisions of law. Further, the original documents have yet not been produced by the Bank.

¶33

6. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that admittedly original documents were not produced before the Asstt. Registrar. An I.A. No. 316 of 2017 was filed by the Bank which was allowed.

¶34

7. At the very outset, it is to be observed that in an O.A. proceedings initially burden of proof lies upon the Bank to

¶35

¶36

Misc..Appeal No.44 of 2025 -DRAT-Kolkata prove its case. If Bank fails to prove its case, legal consequences should follow. It is also settled legal proposition that evidence should be primary in nature and if primary evidence is not available, then secondary evidence can be led as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. It is within the domain of the Learned Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal to decide the admissibility of secondary evidence. Asstt. Registrar is simply performing a ministerial act by verifying the documents filed by the secured Creditor in O.A. proceedings. Asstt. Registrar has no jurisdiction either to allow or reject the secondary evidence or the photostat copies filed by the secured creditor. Accordingly, in such circumstances, any direction issued by the Asstt. Registrar for taking secondary evidence on record is liable to be quashed. However, it would be within the domain of Learned Presiding Officer DRT to decide as to whether secondary evidence is admissible or not in accordance with law.

¶37

8. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the impugned order as far as it relates to the observation regarding jurisdiction of Asstt. Registrar is concerned, is liable to be set aside. But the issue is kept open to be decided by the Learned Presiding Officer about admissibility of the secondary evidence in pending O.A. proceedings.

¶38

9. Accordingly, Appeal is disposed of with the observations made in the body of the judgment. The O.A. is pending since 2017. Learned Presiding Officer DRT Siliguri is

¶39

¶40

Misc..Appeal No.44 of 2025 -DRAT-Kolkata directed to decide the same expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶41

10. Respondent Bank should provide the photostat copies of the documents as directed by the DRT to the Appellants within a period of 15 days or today positively.

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Appeal is disposed of with the observations made in the body of the judgment. Learned Presiding Officer DRT Siliguri is directed to decide the same expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the Learned DRT on the date fixed i.e. on 4^th August, 2025 for hearing.

¶44

No Order as to costs.

¶45

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶46

Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶47

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18^th day of July, 2025.

¶48

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶49

Dated 18^th July, 2025

¶50

10 /tp

Raju Majumder v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Majumder v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Gayatri Devi Agarwal and Ors.

Union Bank Of India versus Ms Venkateshwara Textiles

Ms. S.R. Retail Zone Pvt. Ltd. And Others versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/s Sree Vijayasri Lakshmi Traders

Hdfc Bank versus Maa Kalika Tiles and Ors.

Ms Tbpr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India