Admittedly by the writ petitioner he is the judgment-debtor in Ext.P-1 decree. He has Approached this court with this writ petition seeking a declaration that Ext.P-1 decree is a nullity. The basis for this contention is that Ext.P-1 decree obtained by a scheduled bank is for a total amount of Rs.15,60,740. This being an amount in excess of 10 lakhs, it should have been passed only by a tribunal constituted in terms of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. Therefore, the civil court did not have, on the appointed day, namely 4-11-1996, onwards, power to pass a decree like Ext.P-1. Thus it is a nullity and cannot be therefore executed. To fortify this contention the decisions of the apex court in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and another (A.I.R.2000 S.C. 1535) and of this court in Glenny v. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (2003 (2) K.L.T. 973) are relied on. Going by Section 17 of the Act only the tribunal constituted under it alone did have Jurisdiction to pass such a decree. In other words, the counsel contends, going by Section 18 of the Act jurisdiction of civil courts, is barred to pass a decree for an amount of Rupees 10 lakhs or more in favo