1. Whether the transfer of a suit from the (Civil) Court to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Sec. 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 would depend upon the amount sought to be recovered at the time of institution of the suit or whether the interest accruing pendentelite till the establishment of the tribunal must also be taken into account to find that the amount of debt had exceeded Rs.10 lacs to attract the jurisdiction of the tribunal and consequently to cause ouster of the jurisdiction of the civil Court ? This is the question to be answered in this writ petition.

2. The facts of the case are simple, brief and without controversy. In the year, 1986 the State Bank of India (respondent No. 2) filed a suit registered as Money Suit No. 70 of 1986 in the Court of Subordinate Judge I, Muzaffarpur for recovery of its loan, along with interest accused till the date of institution of the suit, from the defendants, including the present petitioner who was defendant No. 4 in the suit. In para 17 of the plaint the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee was shown as Rs. 4,95,016.15 paise and the relief prayed for, insofar as relevant for the present, was in the following terms :

"That on the adjudication of the facts stated above the court be pleased to pass a money decree for Rs. 4,95,016.15 in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants as per the account given in Schedule I and II of the plaint along with the contractual rate of interest pendentelite and future at banks advance rate i.e. at the rate of 16.25% P.A."

(Emphasis added)

3 The suit that was filed in 1986 was finally allowed, on contest by judgment, dated 6-9-2000 and the court gave the bank a simple money decree in the following terms :

"Claim for Rs. 4,95,016.15 paise. "This suit coming on this day for final disposal before Shri Arun Kumar, Sub-Judge, 3rd Muzaffarpur, in the presence of Shri Gopal Krishna Khan, Advocate for the plaintiff and Shri Akhileshwar Pd., Advocate and Shri Birendra Kumar, Advocate for the defendant it is ordered that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed on contract witness against the defendants 1 and 4 and ex parte against defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount as claimed together with interest pendentelite and future at contractual rate to the date of satisfaction of the decree and in the mean time."

(Emphasis added)

4 While the suit was pending before the Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (the Act, hereinafter) came into force with effect from 24-6-1993. On 13-12-1996 a notification was issued making appointment of the Presiding Officer of the tribunal under the Act and by another notification, dated 24-1-1997 issued by the Central Government under Sec. 3 of the Act, a Debt Recovery Tribunal was established at Patna having jurisdiction over the State of Bihar and Orissa.

5. In view of the intervening developments, the decree-holder bank made an application under Sec. 19 of the Act praying before the tribunal for issuance of a recovery certificate for a sum of Rs. 35,38,237.70 paise and further interest at contractual rate with quarterly rests from 1-3-2002 (the date till when interest was calculated in the petition). In the petition it was explained that the claim on the date of filing of the suit was Rs. 4,95,016.15 paise, the interest pendentelite (from the date of institution of the suit to the date of the decree) and future interest from the date of the decree to 28-2-2002 amounted to Rs. 30,74,089.85 paise and the cost of litigation awarded under the decree was Rs. 11,131.70 paise the total recoverable amount, thus, added upto Rs. 35,38,237.70 paise.

6. The tribunal allowed the application filed by the decree-holder bank and by order, dated 1-5-2002 directed for preparation of a certificate of recovery. In pursuance of that order, the certificate of recov