IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1982 of 2026 B. Manoj Kumar Patro …. Petitioner Mr. P. Dash, Advocate -versus- Punjab National Bank(prior to merger known as Oriental Bank of Commerce), Khurda & Another …. Opp. Parties Mr. R.C. Panigrahy, Panel Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 01. ORDER 05.02.2026 Petition prayer reads as under: “In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to; 1) Declare and quash the initiation of proceeding before the Ld. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack vide OA no.698/2019 by the Opp. Party Bank as being illegal, arbitrary and wholly without Jurisdiction; 2) And be further pleased to direct the bank to proceed against the 0pp. Party No.-2 in terms of the Tripartite agreement to recover the loan amount; 3) And to direct the 0pp. party no. 1 bank to declare the petitioner as a non-defaulter and to rectify his CIBIL score; 4) And further be pleased to direct the 0pp. Party Bank to initiate appropriate proceedings preferably under the IBC since the Bank is the financial creditor;” 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, pressing into service the decision of Apex Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340, submits that in view of the amendment to the Recovery Of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, by virtue of notification dated 06.09.2018, the DRT lacks pecuniary jurisdiction and also that the Act itself is not made applicable, where the monetary claim in the suit is less than Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) only. 3. Learned Panel Counsel-Mr. Panigrahy representing the Bank opposes the petition contending that the prayer, which the petitioner has made here, can be put before the DRT and without exhausting that remedy, writ petition is ordinarily not entertained. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned Panel counsel for the Bank. The above being said, since the petitioner is being non- suited on the ground of availability of alternate remedy, liberty is reserved to him to make appropriate application before the DRT seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground stated. That he has to do within a period of ten days. If done, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner under the pending suit till the decision is taken on such contemplated application. In that connection, all contentions are kept open to both the sides. In the above circumstances & with the above observations, petition is disposed off. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Madhusmita