IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7088 of 2002 M/S Pawan Trading Company, a proprietorship firm having its place of business at Jhanjharpur R.S., P.S.- Jhanjharpur R.S., District- Madhubani through its proprietor Shri Pawan Kumar .—Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. Of Banking Division, Shashi Bhawan, New-Delhi. 2. The Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna, 396 East Boring Canal Road, Town and District Patana.. 3. The Central Bank of India, Jhanjharpur Branch, Madhubani through its Branch Manager. --- Respondents. ********** For petitioner: M/S S.D.Sanjay with Gautam Kejriwal, Advocates. Advocate for Respondent- Bank: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv. ***************** 8/ 03-12-2010 Heard Mr. S.D.Sanjay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3. 2. The present writ petition was originally filed seeking a direction from this Court to transfer Title Suit No. 1 of 1993 (M/S Pawan Trading Company versus Central Bank of India and others), pending in the court of learned Subordinate Judge, Madhubani to the court of learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna for being heard along with Mortgage Suit No. 128 of 1993, re-numbered as P.T. Case No. 2 of 2000, which was already pending before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. Though the writ petition was filed as far 2 back as on 28.06.2002, but the order of stay was neither prayed for nor passed by this Court. Therefore, the aforesaid Title Suit No. 1 of 1993 was finally disposed of by judgment and order dated 7th April, 2009 (Annexure-4 to I.A. No. 8677 of 2009). In view of disposal of the suit, the first part of the relief sought for by the petitioner became infructuous. Therefore, the aforesaid I.A. No. 8677 of 2009 was filed on 24.12.2009 seeking amendment in the prayer portion. Unfortunately that matter could not be taken up and remained pending. In the meantime, as has been submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that Mortgage Suit No. 128 of 2003, re-numbered as P.T. Case No. 2 of 2000, has also been disposed of by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. Obviously, now Title Suit No. 1 of 1993 and Mortgage Suit No. 128 of 2003 renumbered as P.T. Case No. 2 of 2000 cannot be heard and decided together. To that extent no relief can be granted by this Court. 3. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a limited prayer and has submitted that against the final order passed by learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna in P.T. Case No. 2 of 2000, a Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 2010, under section 22(2)(e) of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks 3 and Financial Institutions Act, 1993(51 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been filed and is still pending and he may be permitted to raise all the issues before learned Debt Recovery Tribunal. He further submits that certain reliefs have been granted to the petitioner in Title Suit No. 1 of 1993 in which respondent- Bank was a defendant and, therefore, in the suit bearing P.T. Case No. 2 of 2000, filed by the respondent- Bank, relief granted to the petitioner in the said suit is required to be adjusted. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank has rightly submitted that the issues involved cannot be now decided by this Court and entire matter could be heard and decided by learned Debt Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. 5. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the issues before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 2010, if so filed and still pending, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit in accordance with law. BTiwary/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)