V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE matter arises under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the Act ).

( 2 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting question - Whether the suit and the Execution Petition is liable to be transferred under the provisions of the Act of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, pending decision on the claim petitions filed by third party under Order 21 Rules 58 and 99 C. P. C. with regard to the suit mortgaged properties.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as under: The 1st respondent-Bank filed suit O. S. 202 of 1985 against the 2nd respondent herein for the recovery of certain sum and obtained a final decree on 7. 3. 1990. The 1st respondent filed E. P. 7 of 1990 for execution of the said decree by way of sale of the properties and for recovery of Rs. 20,34,089. 10ps. The properties belong to the petitioner. The decree was obtained without his knowledge. The petitioner therefore filed E. A. 15/91 and E. A. 17/92 under Order 21 Rules 99 and 58 CPC, respectively and the petitions were being heard. Meanwhile the Act came into force w. e. f. 24. 6. 1993. The above E. P. and the E. As. were filed on 11-6-1990 ie. , long prior to the commencement of the Act. This Court in a Circular dated 13-2-1995 directed all the Civil Courts not to entertain and decide suits and execution petitions where an amount of debt due to any Bank or financial institutions if Rupees Ten Lakhs and above further all such suits and execution petitions which are pending immediately before the date of establishment of Debt Recovery Tribunal shall stand transferred to the Tribunal at Bangalore. Apart from the above notification, in view of the provisions of the above Act, the suits and execution petitions filed by the Banks, wherein the debt was Rs. 10 lakhs and above, also stood transferred to the Tribunal. The 1st respondent filed a memo to transfer the E. P. to the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore. The 2nd respondent and the petitioner resisted the said application on the ground that the claim petitions in the E. P. 7/90 were still pending before the Court and the claim petitions should be decided only by the executing Court, as if they were suits, that the Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to try the claim petitions and that the Tribunal was not competent to adjudicate upon the claim petitions. However, the Court below has rejected the objections of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and transferred the suit and the E. P, to the Tribunal, Bangalore. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the C. R. P.

( 4 ) THE only contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the claim petitions shall have to be decided only in the Civil Court and in the same suit under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Tribunal is not competent to try the same under the provisions of the Act. Hence, neither the suit nor the E. P. could be transferred to the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a decision of Delhi High Court in Cofex Exports Limited v. Canara Bank, AIR 1997 Del 355. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, however, submits that under the provisions of the Act, all the suits and execution petitions filed by a financial institution for the recovery of a sum exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs, could be entertained and decided only by the Tribunal and that the pending suits or executions petitions should stand transferred to the said Tribunal. It is also submitted that in view of the notification and circular issued by the High Court to which the Civil Courts subordinate, the Civil Courts have no other option except to transfer the suits and the other proceedings to the Tribunal.

( 5 ) THE only question that falls for consideration is whether the suit and the Execution Petition are liable to be transferred to the Tribunal.

( 6 ) THE suit was filed by the 1st respondent-Bank and in pursuance of the mortgag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document