1. Defendants in O.S. No.59/98 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala are the revision petitioners. Pending revision the 1st revision petitioner died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional petitioners 3 and 4. A petition C.M.P. No.6653/2001 was also filed for appointment of the 2nd petitioner as guardian of minors additional petitioners 3 and 4. It was allowed by separate orders.

2. The respondent-Bank instituted a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,73,786.90 ps. alleged to be due in two transactions. It was averred in the plaint that two loans for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs each were granted to the defendants. One is granted to the 1st defendant for construction of a residential building and the other is granted to the 2nd defendant for business purpose. Commom immovable properties belonging to the 1st defendant were offered as security for both these loans. The suit was instituted on 28.8.1998. Though cause of action was different, since the suit was instituted based on the mortgage, the plaintiff was compelled to institute one suit as contemplated under S.67A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Debts Recovery Tribunal was constituted under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from the appointed day, i.e. 4.1.1.1996. Since the amount exceeds Rs.10 lakhs, the suit ought to have been instituted in the Debts Recovery Tribunal as the civil court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Hence, the defendants raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit contending that the suit is not maintainable and the civil court has no jurisdiction. The court below by the impugned order dated 31st May, 2001 dismissed the petition against which the present revision is filed.

3. The court below held that the suit was instituted based on two transactions and on the strength of S.67 of the Transfer of Property Act the suit has been filed and hence there is no necessity to file the suit before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Referring to R.10 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 it was held that the said rule also prohibits in filing application based on more than a single cause of action in a single application. Hence it was held that the suit is properly maintainable before the civil court.

4. As per S.17 of the Act, a Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. As per S.2(c) of the Act, "appointed day", in relation to a Tribunal or an Appellate Tribunal, means the date on which such Tribunal is established under sub-s.(1) of S.3 or as the case may be sub-s.(1) of S.B. Admittedly, in this case the Tribunal was constituted with effect from 4.11.1996.

5. As per S.18 of the Act, on and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in S.17. As per S.1(4) of the Act, the provisions of this Act shall not apply where the amount of debt due to any bank or financial institutions is less than ten lakhs rupees or such other amount, being not less than one lakh rupees, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify.

6. As per S.19(1) of the Act, where a bank or a financial institution has to recover any debt from any person, it may make an application to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one,