1. Animadverting upon the order dated 9 9.2.2011 passed by the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.3602 of 2010, this civil revision petition is filed.

2. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:

(i) The respondent bank herein filed the suit O.S.No.1349 of 2005 with the following payer to grant a judgement and decree

i. directing the defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.9,79,215/- (Rupees nine lakhs seventy nine thousand two hundred and fifteen only) being principal and interest at rate of the 14.5% from the date of this plaint till the date of payment with quarterly rests; in default

ii. Direct the sale of the immovable property under equitable mortgage to the plaintiff morefully described in the schedule hereunder.

iii. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, servant, agent or anyone acting on their behalf from any alienating or dealing with the property morefully described in the schedule hereunder.

iv. Direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit."(extracted as such)

(ii) Written statement was filed by the revision petitioners herein. However, subsequently, they remained ex-parte, whereupon ex-parte judgement and decree was passed.

(iii) Subsequently, the bank concerned filed the E.P. before the Debts Recovery Tribunal invoking the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

(iv) After receipt of notice from the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the execution proceedings, the revision petitioners herein did choose to file an application in I.A.No.3602 of 2010 before the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to get the delay of 546 days condoned in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C.to get set aside the ex-parte decree.

(v) The lower Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said I.A.No.3602 2010 on the ground that it had no jurisdiction in view of the fact that the Debts Recovery Tribunal was seized of the matter in the E.P. concerned filed for executing the said ex-parte decree.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, this civil revision petition has been focussed on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, by placing reliance on the grounds of revision would put forth and set forth his arguements, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(i) The lower Court committed error in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application on the wrong assumption that the Debts Recovery Tribunal entertained the E.P., which was for recovering the decretal dues for more than Rs.10 lakhs.

(ii) The cause of action which existed as on the date of the suit as found evinced and evidenced in the plaint alone would govern the jurisdiction of the civil Court. Without taking this crucial point into account, the lower Court simply dismissed the application, warranting interference in revision.

5. The learned counsel also would cite a few precedents in support of his contention.

6. Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguements as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would advance his arguements, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

(a) The law is well settled that once the Debts Recovery Tribunal is seized of the matter, that would be the end of the jurisdiction of the civil Court, even though a civil Court might have passed the exparte decree, which is sought to be executed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in view of Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993

(b) The lower Court taking into account the precedents correctly decided that the appropriate forum would not be the civil Court to set aside the