G.T. Nanavati, J. : Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant bank filed two civil suits - one against Ballabh Das & Sons and its partners and the other against Ballabh Das & Co. and its partners - in the Court of District Judge at Jaipur for recovery of its dues of Rs. 75,46,921/- and Rs. 56,36,200/- on 24.3.83 and 2.7.84 respectively. During the pendency of the suits, Recovery of Debts due to banks and Financial Institutions Ordinance, 1993 was promulgated by the President of Indian, on 24.6.1993, it was replaced by the Recovery of Debts Due to banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short referred to as `the Act'). After Debt Recovery Tribunal was constituted under the Act at Jaipur, the appellants made two applications on 20.9.94 to the Court for getting the two suits transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court by two separate orders allowed the applications and directed transfer of those suits to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jaipur but retained the counter claim filed by the respondents in Civil Suit No. 152 of 1988.

3. Feeling aggrieved by those orders the respondents filed two or revisions application (669 of 195 and 670 of 1995) before the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court held that the question whether the amounts claimed in the suits are legally recoverable or not is question of fact and can be adjudicated only after recording evidence. It further held that whether the amounts claimed fall within the meaning of the term `debt' as defined by Section 2(g) of the Act is also a question of fact and till those facts are decided by the Court the provisions of the Act cannot be said to have become applicable to the suits on and from the date on which the Tribunal at Jaipur was established. It also held that Civil Suit No. 152 of 1988 in which a counter claim has been filed could not have been transferred to the Tribunal, as no application was made under Order 8 Rule 6 C of the Code of Civil Procedure for exclusion of the counter-claim and also because no such application could be made after framing of issues. Taking this view the High Court allowed both the revisions applications and by a common judgment set aside the orders passed by the District Court.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the appellant Bank has filed these appeals. It was contended by Mr. Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the Bank, that the High Court has wrongly criticized the District Court by observing that it had over-looked the provisions of the law. In his submission it is really the High Court which has overlooked the relevant provisions of the Act and erroneously allowed the revision applications. He submitted that the suits being proceedings for recovery of debts alleged to be due, the Civil Court ceased to have any jurisdiction to deal with them on merits.

5. It is not in dispute that the respondents, under the export credit facility with the appellant bank, was obtaining advances from the appellant bank from time to time against pre shipment and post-shipment exports of precious stones, jewellery, diamonds etc. It is also not in dispute that there was non-payment to the bank by the foreign buyers of the bills mentioned in the two suits. The defence of the respondents is that under the insurance cover obtained at the instance of the bank from the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation the bank is insured against any loss on account of non-realization of amounts from foreign buyers and on delivery by the respondents to the bank of documents of export of goods for which the credit was given or advances were made are to be deemed to be payments by the respondents to the Bank. The respondents had delivered the documents in respect of the suit transactions to the bank and, therefore the amounts mentioned in those documents should be deemed to have been,paid to the bank. But the fact the amounts claimed under the two suits have not been received by the bank and are still outstanding is not is di