JUDGMENT - B.B. VAGYANI, J.:---Heard learned Advocate Shri A.B. Naik for the petitioner, Shri A.H. Joshi, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Shri J.S. Gavane for respondent No. 4.

Liberty to delete respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The validity of section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banking and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, is not pressed.

2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

3. The respondent No. 1 bank had advanced a loan of Rs. five lacs to present petitioner on 13th April, 1983. The deleted respondents No. 3 and 4 stood sureties for the petitioner to the bank. Another loan of Rs. Ten lacs was also advanced by the respondent No. 1 bank to the petitioner. Petitioner also availed one more financial assistance for agricultural purposes i.e. grape-vine and purchase of trailer. The petitioner could not repay the loan, as agreed, and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 Bank filed Special Civil Suit No. 63/1990 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopergaon, district Ahmednagar, for the purpose of recovery of Rs. 12,53,586-55.

4. The petitioner, who is main contesting party, filed written statement Exh. 36 and thereby contested the money claim. The petitioner submitted a counter claim vide Exh. 66 under the provisions of Order 8, Rule 6-A of C.P.C. and claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 25 lacs from the respondent bank on the ground that respondent bank did not disburse the loan in time. The counter claim set up by the petitioner has been objected by the respondent bank. The learned trial Judge was pleased to allow application Exh. 66 and thus, counter claim preferred by the petitioner has been registered.

5. During pendency of the suit, an Act, called Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act No. 53/1993) came to be passed by the Parliament. The said Act came into force w.e.f. 24th of June, 1993. After introduction of the Act, the Government of India, in exercise of its power under section 3 of the aforesaid Act, on 16-7-1999, issued a notification establishing a Debt Recovery Tribunal for the State of Maharashtra and Goa. Pursuant to the said notification dated 16th of July, 1999, the High Court on 31st of July, 1999, issued a circular directing the courts, wherein suits are filed by the banks/financial institutions are pending and having valuation of Rs. ten lacs and more, to transfer the suits to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. On the basis of the enactment, particularly the provisions of section 31 of the aforesaid Act, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopergaon, before whom the Special Civil Suit No. 63/1998 was pending, exercised powers under section 31 and transferred the said suit to Debt Recovery Tribunal by order dated 27th of October 1999. While passing the said order the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopergaon, is pleased to separate the counter claim filed by the present petitioner and directed to treat the counter claim as a separate suit. This order is impugned in the present writ petition by the petitioner.

6. Learned Advocate Shri A.B. Naik vehemently submitted before me that the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopergaon, is manifestly incorrect in law. According to him, the counter claim springs from the original claim though it is an independent suit in the eye of law. He submits further that the counter claim is a shadow of the original claim and, therefore, the learned trial Judge ought to have transferred the counter claim preferred by the present petitioner along with the Special Civil Suit No. 63/1998 to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In order to support his submission, learned Advocate Shri A.B. Naik relies upon (M.E. Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Banaras State Bank Ltd.)1, A.I.R. 2000 Allahabad 181.

7. Learned Advocate Shri A.H. Joshi, for the respondent bank has supported the impugned order.

8. I gave anxious consideration to the rival submissions. The count

Click Here to Read the rest of this document