( 1 ) PRESENT Appeal from Order is preferred by the appellants original plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 under Order 43 Rule 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 10. 1. 2008 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad below Exhs. 20 and 21 passed in Civil Suit No. 1431 of 2003, by which the learned Auxiliary Chamber Judge, City Civil Court has allowed the aforesaid two chamber summons by ordering to return the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented in DRT, Mumbai under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present Appeal from Order in nutshell are as under: the original plaintiffs are guarantors of Maradia Chemicals Limited. The said Maradia Chemicals Limited obtained loan from the defendant Bank i. e. I. C. I. C. I. Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank" ). The said Maradia Chemicals Limited suffered loss and it appears that defendant Bank recalled the loan facility. That the Bank had filed a Civil Suit against the Maradia Chemicals Limited for recovery of loan advance to it initially on the original side of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court and subsequently the said suit has been transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "drt"), Mumbai which is numbered as O. A. No. 977 of 1999. In the said suit, the appellants herein original plaintiffs are also the defendants in the said proceedings. It also appears that even Company filed one Suit in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad being Civil Suit No. 3189 of 2002 for claiming damages from the Bank on the ground that the Bank had released foreign loan of lesser amount then agreed which resulted in delay in implementation of projects by Company. In the said suit, Chamber summons was taken out for rejection of plaint and by order dated 24. 1. 2003 the plaint was ordered to be returned to the company under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being presented before DRT. Mumbai. Against the said order the company preferred Appeal from Order No. 53 of 2003 with Cross Objection No. 2 of 2003 before this Court and by an order dated 26. 2. 2003, the order of the trial Court by which the plaint was returned came to be set aside and instead of that, it is ordered that the plaint against the defendant No. 1 ICICI Bank Ltd. , shall stand rejected under the provisions of Order 10 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The suit against the defendants No. 2 and 3 shall proceed further own its merits and from the stage on which the impugned order is passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the suit filed by the Company against the Bank for claiming damages has been dismissed and / or returned to the Company for presenting it before the DRT, Mumbai. That the appellants herein original plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 had also instituted present Civil Suit No. 1431 of 2003 against the Bank also for damages for the recovery of aggregate amount of Rs. 2078. 97 crores with running interest thereon 12% p. a. from the date of suit till realization alleging that Bank has violated principles of Banking in respect of the loan sanctioned to the plaintiff by the Bank as a result whereof plaintiffs suffered damages. It is required to be noted that suit filed by the Company against the Bank being Civil Suit No. 3189 of 2002 was also for claiming the damages, on the same ground, which is not ordered to be returned to the Company for presenting it before the DRT, Mumbai for treating it as counter claim in the suit pending before the DRT, Mumbai. In the said suit No. 1431 of 2003 filed by the appellant original plaintiffs directors and/ or guarantors who are also the defendants in the suit filed by the Bank before the DRT, Mumbai, the respondent Bank, took out two Chamber summons vide Exhs. 20 and 21 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure mainly on the ground that suit is barred in view of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document