The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the jurisdiction to entertain execution petitions lies with the Debt Recovery Tribunal when the amount sought to be recovered exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs.

M.R. Verma, J.—This order shall dispose of the preliminary objection I raised by the judgment debtors that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this execution petition.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the aforesaid question are that vide judgment dated 24.10.1991 this Court passed a decree for Rs. 3,01,313.15 in favour of the decree holder and against the judgment debtors and now a sum of Rs. 13,16,388.53 has become recoverable on the basis of the said decree, hence this execution petition by the decree holder in which the aforesaid question has been raised for the judgment debtors.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The learned Counsel for the judgment debtors contended that the decree being in favour of a bank in a loan transaction, the present petition ought to have been presented before the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereafter referred to as the DRT) and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it.

5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the decree holder submitted that in case it is found that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, it may be transferred to DRT Chandigarh.

6. The factual aspects as stated here-in-above, are not in dispute. Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereafter referred to as the Act) which is relevant to determine the objection raised for the judgment debtors, reads as follows: "31. Transfer of pending cases.—(1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any Court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before any court. (2) Where any suit or other proceeding stands transferred from any Court to a Tribunal under sub-section (1),— (a) the Court shall, as soon as may be after such transfer, forward the records of such suit or other proceeding to the Tribunal; and (b) the Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with such suit or other proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as in the case of an application made under Section 19 from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage or de novo as the Tribunal may deem fit."

7. It is evident on a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions that all suits and other proceedings based on such a cause of action which if accrued before the establishment of DRT, would have been instituted before such DRT by virtue of provisions of the Act, pending before any court immediately before the establishent of DRT under the Act, shall stand transferred to the Tribunal. The expression "other proceedings" as used in the aforesaid Section, is comprehensive enough to include execution applications. Thus, all the pending suits or applications/proceedings including execution applications in respect of which the DRT has the jurisdiction, shall stand transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of the provisions of Section 31 supra.

8. The mere fact that the present application has been filed after the establishment of the DRT in a suit which was decreed by this Court when there was no tribunal, does not in any way exclude the jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain the present application. To hold the contrary will be contrary to the intents and purposes of the Act. In view of this position in law and the amount sought to be recovered being more than Rs. 10 lakhs, the DRT alone has the jurisdiction to entertain this petition.

9. The view I have taken herein above is fully supported by the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank, Dasuya v. Chajju Ram and others, (2000) 6 SCC 655. In this case the Civil Court passed a de