-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4353 OF 2009 Harshad s/o Himmatlal Rupani ... Petitioner versus The Sangli Bank ..Respondent Mr. Rahul Motkari for the petitioner. Mr. A.M. Savagave, instructed by Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, for the respondent. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: APRIL 12, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Pune dated 28th June, 2005 which is confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. 2. The petitioner has filed a suit being Suit No. 598 of 2004 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, against the Respondent Bank for certain reliefs. Subsequently, the respondent Bank has instituted proceedings before the DRT, Pune, by way of Original Application No. 74 of 2004. On behalf of the present petitioner, an application was preferred in the said proceedings that till the civil suit is decided by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, the proceedings before the DRT should be stayed. The DRT rejected the said -2- application by observing that the proceedings pending before the Civil Court is required to be transferred to the Tribunal. In our view, the application filed by the present petitioner before the DRT was misconceived as there is no provision in law by which the DRT was required to stay the proceedings till the Civil Suit is decided. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly pointed out that the suit filed by the present petitioner falls within Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (DRT Act). If that be so, in our view, perhaps the suit itself which is filed after coming into operation of the DRT Act may not be maintainable before the Civil Court. However, the DRT has asked the petitioner to request the Civil Court to transfer the proceedings from Civil Court to the Tribunal. It is true, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code has no application so far as the proceedings before the DRT are concerned. However, under Section 31, proceedings can be transferred to the DRT. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the suit of the petitioner, original plaintiff, is falling under Section 17 of the Act. However, since the Tribunal has permitted the petitioner to apply to the Civil Court for transfer of the suit and against that order no grievance is made by the respondent Bank, it would not be proper for us to pass an order by holding that the suit is not maintainable and in view of the consensus prevailing between the parties in the matter, we direct the Civil -3- Judge, Pune, to transfer the suit filed by the Petitioner being Civil Suit No. 598 of 2004 to the DRT, Pune, forthwith. Such transfer may be treated as under Section 31 of the DRT Act. After receiving the papers, the Tribunal shall proceed with the same in accordance with law. It is for the Tribunal to consider as to whether such suit should be treated as a counter claim to the proceedings initiated by the Bank or not. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner should be allowed to lead proper evidence before the Tribunal. We have no doubt in our mind that the Tribunal will follow the Rules in this behalf and after such transfer, the petitioner may be permitted to lead evidence as deem fit in accordance with law. We reiterate that we have not examined the question as to whether the suit is maintainable or not before the Civil Judge,Senior Division, Pune, as the Tribunal has given permission to the petitioner for request of such transfer against which the respondent has not objected. Since Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable and since the petitioner’s suit was pending at the time when the respondent Bank filed the application before the DRT, such transfer should be treated as a transfer under Section 31 of the DRT Act. 5. In view of the consensus prevailing between the parties, writ to go down to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, forthwith and the Civil Judge, -4- Senior Division, Pune, shall immediately transfer the papers of Suit No. 598 of 2004 to the DRT, Pune. In view of the pendency of this petition the proceedings before the DRT, Pune are stayed. After receiving the papers and proceedings, the DRT, Pune shall dispose of both the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. However, this aspect is left to the Tribunal. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.G. KETKAR, J.