Debt recovery disputes must be resolved through the Debt Recovery Tribunal, not through civil suits, as per established legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. (Oral)--The plaintiff has filed the present suit with the following prayers:

(a) Declare that defendant owes to the plaintiff, Rs.1,73,24,589/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Three Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Nine only), the excess amount taken from him, with interest @ 18% p.a. from 2012;

(b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, not to restrain the plaintiff from approaching another Bank, willing to restructure the loan with reduced rate of interest;

(c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants, restraining them from unduly interfering with Credit-rating process of the plaintiff'

(d) Direct the Defendant to upgrade the NPA status of the Plaintiff and its account to standard category.

(e) The cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

(f) Any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants".

2. Prior to the institution of this plaint, plaintiff had instituted a plaint being CS (COMM) 899/2018 on the same cause of action as pleaded in the present suit. The said plaint was rejected by this Court vide the judgment dated 22nd May, 2018, both on the grounds that the plaintiff had not paid the proper Court fees as also that the suit was not maintainable, and noted as under:

"3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for (i) permanent injunction restraining the defendant Bank of Maharashtra from restraining the plaintiff from approaching another Bank and from interfering with Credit Rating Process of the plaintiff; (ii) declaration that the defendant Bank owes to the plaintiff the excess amount taken by the defendant Bank from the plaintiff with interest @ 18% per annum from the year 2012; (iii) mandatory injunction directing the defendant Bank to restructure the loan of the plaintiff and charge the plaintiff only that prevailing market rate of interest which the other Banks are charging and to enhance the cash credit limit of the plaintiff from Rs.650 lakhs to Rs.1,000 lakhs; (iv) mandatory injunction directing the defendant Bank to render all time bound assistance to the plaintiff; (v) mandatory injunction directing the defendant Bank to issue a letter addressed to all credit agencies in order to facilitate the Credit Rating of the plaintiff; (vi) mandatory injunction directing the defendant Bank to permit the plaintiff to run a parallel account; (vii) mandatory injunction directing the defendant Bank to upgrade the NPA status of the plaintiff; (viii) mandatory injunction directing the defendant Bank to make available all statements, documents and certificates to the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff, in paras 33 to 35 of the plaint, qua valuation has pleaded as under: "33. That the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of above Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) with 18% interest from 2012. 34. The captioned suit is a `commercial dispute' as defined U/s. 2(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015 and for the purpose of jurisdiction, the suit is valued above Rs.1,00,00,000/-, and the requisite fixed court fee of Rs.200/- has been paid. 35. That for the relief of permanent injunction, valuation is made for Rs.130/- and court fee of Rs.13/- affixed herewith." and filed this suit with the court fee of Rs.230/-.

5. Though the Registry of this Court raised objection about the valuation of the suit but the counsel for the plaintiff insisted on having the s