K. A. ABDUL GAFOOR J.

The petitioner is a bank. The petitioner instituted a suit before the Sub-Court, Alappuzha. A decree was passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner moved for execution. During the pendency of the execution, a Tribunal was constituted in terms of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, on November 4, 1996. On and from the day of such constitution, no civil court will have power to try any suit or proceedings, other than appeals, in respect of a specified amount. Section 31 of the Act provides that every such suit or proceedings pending before any court immediately before the date of establishment of the Tribunal shall stand transferred if the cause of action of such suit or proceedings would have been such that it would not lie before that court, if filed after the establishment of the Tribunal. The cause of action of the suit which is now executed by the petitioner-bank for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, was admittedly less than the specified amount, viz., Rs. 10 lakhs. But because of the accrual of interest on the decree amount, the amount had escalated to more than Rs. 10 lakhs as on November 4, 1996. Therefore execution of proceedings stood transferred to the Tribunal by operation of section 31. The papers were thus rightly forwarded to the Tribunal. But the Tribunal, when the matter was examined, found that the cause of action of the suit was less than Rs. 10 lakhs when the suit was filed. The case was sent back to the civil court. That is under challenge in this original petition.

The main contention of the petitioner is that the amount due to the bank as on the date of constitution of the Tribunal, i.e., November 4, 1996, shall be determinative for deciding the jurisdiction of the forum where such proceedings shall be tried. As on November 4, 1996, the amount to be realised including the interest accrued had exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs. Therefore the Sub-Court, Alappuzha, did not have any jurisdiction and had rightly transferred the proceedings to the Tribunal. So, going by section 31 of the Act, that action was perfectly justified and the Tribunal could not have held that it did not have jurisdiction merely because the amount at the time of its institution was less than Rs. 10 lakhs.I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner. As per section 31, only those suits or proceedings "the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been if it had arisen after such establishment" of the Tribunal could be filed in the Tribunal alone. The cause of action whereon the petitioner's suit was based was admittedly less than Rs. 10 lakhs. In such circumstance, going by section 31, that amount shall be determinative for deciding jurisdiction where the proceedings shall be continued. The Tribunal is, therefore, perfectly justified in retransferring the matter to the Sub-Court, Alappuzha.

Original petition fails, dismissed.

It is made clear that the Sub-Court, Alappuzha, shall expedite execution proceedings.