( 1 ) THE review application under consideration raises an important question as to the jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal to hear, try and dispose of the mortgage suits.

( 2 ). The plaintiff bank has instituted a civil suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,53,60,063. 41 with costs and interest against the defendants. There are several transactions between the parties. One of them is a mortgage by deposit of title deeds with the plaintiff bank securing the advance made by the plaintiff to the defendants enumerated in the plaint, the deposit of title deeds having been made with the intention of creating an equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff bank. The suit is styled as one under Order 34 Civil Procedure Code seeking relief of the sale of mortgage property and hypothecated goods as also a money decree for the recovery of the suit amount.

( 3 ). On 1. 5. 95, this court directed the records of the suit to be transmitted to the Debt Recovery Tribunal on the ground that the suit lay within the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafterreferred to as `the Tribunal , for short ). The order was made at the stage of preliminary hearing in the suit when the defendants were yet to be noticed. The defendants have now sought for review and recall of the abovesaid order dated 1. 5. 95 submitting that the order was not warranted inasmuch as the suit was within the jurisdictional competence of the civil court and hence it could not have been transmitted to the Tribunal.

( 4 ). On the defendant s application the plaintiff bank has been noticed.

( 5 ). The learned counsel for the parties have addressed the court on the question-whether in view of the provisions contained in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act 51 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as `the Act , for short), a suit for recovery of mortgage debt is to be tried by civil court or by the Tribunal on and after 24. 6. 93, the date on which the act has come into force; the Tribunal having been constituted too.

( 6 ). Apart from the counsel for the parties Mr Rajiv Mehra Advocate sought leave of the court for intervention at the hearing. He too has been heard. He has supported the stand taken by the counsel for defendants/ review-applicants.

( 7 ). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants-applicants that there is a distinction between a debt and a mortgage debt. The term "debt" as defined in the Act would not embrace within its meaning a suit for enforcement of any liability arising out of a mortgage. It is contended on behalf of the bank that in the Act, the definition of debt is a wide and sweeping one and would embrace a suit for the enforcement of a liability arising out of a mortgage also.

( 8 ). It will be useful to notice the Statement of Objects and Reasons leading to the enactment of the Act. It is as under :

"banks and financial institutions at present experience considerable difficulties in recovering loans and enforcement of securities charged with them. The existing procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and financial institutions has blocked a significant portion of their funds in unproductive assets, the value of which deteriorates with the passage of time. The Committee on the Financial System headed by Shri M. Narasimham has considered the setting up of the Special Tribunals with special powers for adjudication of such matters and speedy recovery as critical to the successful implementation of the financial sector reforms. An urgent need was, therefore, felt to work out a suitable mechanism through which the dues to the banks and financial institutions could be realised without delay. In 1981 a Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri T. Tiwari had examined the legal and other difficulties faced by banks and financial institutions and suggested remedial measures including charges in law. The Tiwari Committee had also suggested setting up of Special Tribunals for recovery of dues

Click Here to Read the rest of this document