( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of FAO (OS) 266/95 and FAO (OS) 314 to 319 OF 1996. These appeals raise issues of frequent occurrence touching the entertainablity of cross- suits, counter claims and claims of set-off before Debt Recovery Tribunal, and impact of their existence in written statement on the jurisdictional competence of the civil court qua the jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal over such cases which are associated with cross suits, cross claims and claims for set-off, filed or preferred reciprocally. Let us lay the factual matrix so as to seat the legal questions proping up for decision. Cofex Export vs. Canara Bank and Ors. arises out of civil suit No. 3193/92 filed by Canara Bank against the appellant and two others for recovery of Rs. 25,21,556. 98. The Suit was filed on 24. 8. 92. The transactions entered into between the parties are banking and loan facilities, packaging credit facility and loan on pledge and hypothecation. In the written statement filed on 22. 11. 94, the defendants 1 and 2 have preferred counter-claim, wherein the pleas raised are that the plaintiff bank has charged excessive rate of interest in breach of agreement between the parties and has also adjusted more amounts then due in the discounting of foreign bills. It is submitted that if the statements of account are correctly drawn up consistently with the agreements between the parties and the plaintiff gives due credit to all the amounts set out in the written statement then nothing would be found due and payable by the defendants; instead the plaintiff bank may be found liable to pay something to the defendants.

3. 1 The reliefs prayed for are : (a) pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff directing the plaintiff to correct, draw and recast the entire account maintained by the defendant with the plaintiff since 12. 11. 1986 in accordance with the terms of agreement between the parties, inter alia, giving all due credits in respect of excess amount of interest charged and amounts/credits received from export credit guarantee Corporation and cheques received towards payment of foreign bills of the defendant for goods exported by them and deleting the charges/ amounts not provided for in the agreement; (b) Dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs. (c) Award costs to the defendants towards the counter claim.

3. 2 The relief of mandatory injunction has been valued at Rs. 5,10,000. 00 for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction with court fee of Rs. 7,322. 00 paid thereon. FAO (OS) No. 314 to 319/96 respectively arise out of the following suits:- @3tab = Suit No. filed on names of Defendants suit Amount in Rs. Ps @3tab = CS 2806/93 7. 12. 93. M/s TAYAL PLYWOOD (P) LTD 3,84,89,483. 41 @3tab = CS 2810/93 07. 12. 93 tayal SALES CORP (P) LTD and Ors 2,59,69,053. 94 @3tab = CS 2811/93 14. 12. 93 vijay KUMAR TAYAL AND 3 ORS 2,44,17,286. 34 @3tab = CS 2809/93 7. 12. 93. KUSUM GUPTA 95,56,800. 92 @3tab = CS 2808/93 4. 11. 93 geeta RAM GUPTA 1,05,38,614. 61 @3tab = 2807/93 7. 12. 93. SANDEEP PLYWOOD (P) LTD 2,13,25,596. 06 @3tab =

( 2 ) 1 All the six suits have been filed by State Bank of India. They seek recovery of debts secured by mortgages. In none of the cases written statement has been filed. In each of the cases the defendant/s have moved applications under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking stay of the civil suit on the ground that the defendants are facing criminal prosecution on the same facts as set out in the plaint and filing of the written statement would prejudice them in their defence in the criminal trial on account of their defence being disclosed. On 23. 5. 94, in each of the suits, the learned trial Judge has directed filing of written statement to be deferred till disposal of the application seeking stay of the suit.

( 3 ) 4. 2 It appears that the defendants in suit No. 2806 to 2810/93, all belong to one family or one business house known