( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of application under o. 9 R. 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 20. 2. 1998 moved by defendant No. 6 as per amended memo of. parties (defendant No. 5 as per original memo of parties)

( 2 ) THE plaintiff, Punjab and Sind Bank, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,69,340. 36 together with interest thereon. The amount is recoverable by selling the immovable properties mortgaged by defendant No. II with the bank. The defendants were proceeded ex-parte. On 20th February, 1998 ex-parte decree was passed. It is pleaded that the defendants were never served summons/notices. The defendants became aware of the decree only on receipt of the recovery notice from the Recovery Office after execution proceedings were initiated by the Debt Recovery tribunal No. 2, Delhi. It is pleaded that the applicant was residing at Saharanpur, where he was working since 1968; as per the service report, defendants including applicant were not found at the given address on 6. 5. 1986; the service report dated 21. 8. 1986 shows that summons/notices ware returned back with the report "refused" and as per the service report of 25. 9. 1986 summons were returned "unserved", "not residing at the given address". Thus, it is pleaded that the service reports are self-contradictory. The defendants were served by publication in English daily. "statesman" on 20. 1. 1987 having circulation in Delhi. The same could not be read by the applicant as the same was not in circulation in U. P. The applicant was working as a Senior chemist in Star Paper Mills Ltd. , Saharanpur, U. P. and did not have the knowledge of the suit. It is pleaded that the applicant did not execute any document, and thus has prayed for setting aside the decree dated 20. 2. 1998.

( 3 ) NOTICE of the application was issued. Learned counsel for the plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that the decree to be executed is above Rs. 50 lacs, therefore, application for setting aside judgment and decree is not maintainable in this court and would be maintainable only before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short "drt") constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "the Act" ). There is some typographical error in the order dated 2. 5. 1988. The defendants 4 to 7 were in fact proceeded ex-parte on 20. 4. 1987 and not on 20. 4. 1988. Learned counsel for the applicant argued to the contrary.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant argued that in this case, defendants were proceeded ex-parte and ex-parte decree was passed against them on. 20. 2. 1998 by this court. Therefore, the order proceeding ex-parte on 20. 4. 1987 can only be set aside by this court and not by the Tribunal. Learned counsel argued that the court which passed the decree alone has thejurisdiction to set aside the same. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the supreme Court decision in Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir and others. AIR 1982 Supreme Court 636 and in Official receiver. Bangalore v. Sellamma AIR 1973 Mysore 154.

( 5 ) LAW in this regard is settled. The decretal amount being a debt as envisaged under Section 2 (g) of the Act would fall under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the DRT under the Act. Section 31 of the Act deals with the transfer of the cases. It reads as under:

"31. Transfer of pending cases, - (1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding, the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before any court. (2) Where any suit or other proceeding stands transferred from any court to a Tr