( 1 ) ALL these three petitions raise a common question of law as to the interpretation of clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 3 of the Gujarat Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Therefore at the request of the Advocates of the parties all these petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE respondents-Banks in these petitions have filed suits against the petitioners and others for recovery of various amounts. The petitioners who were the defendants in the respective suits raised a contention that in view of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 3 of the Act suits abated after the coming into force of the Act and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the same in view of the judgment of this Court (N. H. Bhatt J.) in-Special Civil Application No. 1702 of 1984 decided on 9-10-1985.

( 3 ) WHEN Special Civil Application No. 5712 of 1985 came up for interim orders before A. P. Ravani J. he did not agree with the view expressed by N. H. Bhatt J and by his order dated 28 1985 directed the office to place the matter before the Honble the Chief Justice for being placed before a Division Bench.

( 4 ) SIMILARLY Special Civil Application Nos. 5985 of 1985 and 5986 of 1985 came up before M. B. Shah J. and he also did not agree with the view expressed by N. H Bhatt J. since he himself had taken a contrary view in Bank of Baroda v. Thakker Chandulal Ishwarlal 1985 Gujarat Law Herald 1204 and requested the learned Chief Justice to refer these two petitions to the Division Bench for hearing of interim relief. That is how all these three petitions have come up before us for decision.

( 5 ) WE will make a short reference to the facts of Special Civil Application No. 5712 of 1985 which is earlier in point of time. Respondent no. 1 - State Bank of Saurashtra Porbandar Branch Porbandar filed a suit against the petitioner-firm M/s. Rasiklal and Bros. Ahmedabad for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13 435 paise with interest. Similarly the other Banks have filed suits against the petitioners of other two petitions. Instead of defending the suits in the Civil Court the defendants of the respective suits have filed these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court for appropriate orders or directions to hold and declare that in view of the provisions of the Act the suits filed by the respective Banks in the Civil Court at Porbandar were not maintainable and therefore the proceedings in those suits were required to be quashed and set aside. None of the petitioners in these petitions has entered into the merits of the suits filed by the respondents-Banks; all of them have raised a legal contention as to the interpretation of clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 3 of the Act.

( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties it will be necessary to reproduce sec. 3 and sec. 7 which is renumbered as sec. 6 (4) (1) of the Act. They read as under:3 (1) Where any person is a party - (a) to any agreement relating to a loan advance or grant given to him or relating to credit in respect of or relating to hire-purchase of goods sold to him by the State Government the Corporation or as the case may be the Government Company by way of financial assistance; or (b) to any agreement relating to a loan advance or grant given to him or relating to credit in respect of or relating to hire-purchase of goods sold to him by a bank or a Government Company as the case may be under a State Sponsored Scheme; or (c) to any agreement relating to guarantee given by the State Government or the Corporation in respect of a loan raised by an industrial concern; or (d) to any agreement providing that any money payable thereunder to the State Government or the Corporation shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue; and such person (i) makes any default in payment of the loan or advance of any instalment thereof; or (ii) havin