ORDER
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the State Bank of India, Vizianagram Branch, Vizianagaram with a prayer to withdraw OS No. 34 of 2003 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge Visakhapatnam, filed by the Respondents 1 to 3 herein, and transfer the same for its enquiry and trial along with OS No. 132 of 2002 (Old OA. No. 376 of 2000), on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. In order to consider as to whether such a relief could be granted, it may be just and necessary to notice a few relevant facts leading to filing of this civil revision petition.
3. The first respondent herein is alleged to have availed the agricultural term loan of Rs. 60.00 lakhs to establish a poultry layer unit of 40,000 layer birds at Gaddapeta Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam from the petitioner-Bank after executing the required security documents on 11-6-1996. Respondents 2 to 4 herein stood as guarantors for the said loan. The first respondent is alleged to have committed default in repaying the loan amount together with interest thereon. The petitioner-Bank accordingly filed OA No. 376 of 2002 on 11-7-2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad which later stood transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and renumbered as OA No. 132 of 2002, for recovery of Rs. 1,06,29,497/- together with future interest and costs.
4. Respondents 1 to 3 hereinafter receiving the summons form the Tribunal and having filed their written statement in OA, filed OS No. 34 of 2003 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam against the petitioner-Bank seeking damages. The sum and substance of the said suit filed by the Respondents 1 to 3 herein is that there was deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner-Bank in respect of the loan facilities sanctioned by it to the first respondent.
5. The respondents herein in their suit sought to place reliance upon the same documents upon which the petitioner-Bank is relying upon in OA., filed by it, for recovery of amounts, against the respondents.
6. In the OA., filed by the petitioner-Bank, it is clearly and specifically averred that the cause of action for the application arose on 11-6-1996 when the petitioner-Bank sanctioned the agricultural term loan facility of Rs. 60.00 lakhs to the first respondent and on 11-6-1996 when the respondent have executed the documents creating equitable mortgage over the schedules of properties I to V towards security for the loan amount.
7. In the suit filed by Respondents 1 to 3 herein, it is specifically averred that the case of action for the suit arose when the first respondent approached the petitioner-Bank for an agricultural terms loan of Rs. 60.00 lakhs and when the same was sanctioned by the Bank for establishing the Poultry layer unit of 40,000 layer birds at Gaddapeta Village, Padmanabham Revenue Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and when the first respondent alleged to have invested initial capital including entrepreneur contribution of about Rs. 90.00 lakhs and when the first respondent executed necessary documents insisted by the petitioner-Bank, which according to him, are unilateral and arbitrary.
8. Thus, it is clear that Respondents 1 to 3 herein in their suit, filed for recovery of certain amounts from the petitioner-Bank, and the petitioner-Bank in its OA, filed for recovery of money advanced to the respondents, rely upon the same set of documents.
9. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Bank rightly contended that the suit filed by the respondents herein is, practically and in substance, in the nature of a counter claim, which as well could have been preferred by the respondents in the very OA, filed by the petitioner-Bank, pending adjudication on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam.
10. In order to avoid the possible conflicting judgments and further with a view to avoid unnecessary complications, it is not only desirable, but also just and necessary to withdraw and transfer OS No. 34 of 2003 from the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for its enquiry and trial along with OA No. 132 of 2002 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam filed by the petitioner-Bank.
11. Obviously, the learned IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam shall have no jurisdiction to make an enquiry and trial into OA.No. 132 of 2202 filed by the petitioner-Bank for the reasons that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded under Section 18 of the Recovery Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') to try such applications. The Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act shall alone exercise 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. The petitioner herein is a Bank and the proceedings have been initiated by it as against the respondents for recovery of debts due to it from the respondents. The said application is liable to be exclusively tried by the Tribunal created under the provisions of the Act and to that extent the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred.
12. That apart, under Sub-section (8) of Section 19 of the Act even a defendant in an application may, in addition to his right of pleadings a set-off under Sub-section (6), set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the applicant (Bank or financial institution), any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the applicant either before or after the filing of the application.
13. A plain reading of Sub-section (8) of Section 19 of the Act makes it clear that the Tribunal is clothed with the exclusive jurisdiction not only to make an enquiry into the application filed by a Bank or financial institution to recover the debts due to such Bank or Financial Institution, but is also clothed with the jurisdiction to make an enquiry into the counter claim that may be set up by a defendant in the application filed by such Bank or Financial Institution. The nature of the suit filed by the respondents herein is, practically and in substance, in the nature of a counter claim. Thus the Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the same.
14. Interest of justice requires hearing and disposal of OA No. 132 of 2002 filed by the petitioner-Bank against the respondents herein as well as OS No. 34 of 2003 filed by the Respondents 1 to 3 herein against the petitioner-Bank together by the Tribunal.
15. In the result, OS No. 34 of 2003 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, filed by Respondents 1 to 3 herein, is accordingly withdrawn and transferred for its enquiry and trial, by the Tribunal, along with OA No. 132 of 2002 on the file the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, filed by the petitioner-Bank.
16. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.