IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.182 of 2007 Central Bank Of India Versus Braj Bhushan Singh @ Pappu Babu & Ors. ----------- 06. 23.11.2011 Heard Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the opp. Parties in spite of service of notices. By the impugned order the court below has rejected the petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for transfer of the mortgage money suit to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that as the valuation of the mortgage money suit is more than Rs. 10,00000/- the court of Civil Judge I, Nawada will have no jurisdiction and the plaintiff can only file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the said amount in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal recovery of debts due to Bank’s and Financial Institution Act, 1993. However, the learned counsel has rightly conceded that there is no provision for transfer of the mortgage money suit which has been filed subsequent to the coming into 2 force of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 to the Tribunal and the only course open to the plaintiff was to make a prayer under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. for return of the plaint in order to present it before competent Court or Tribunal. In view of the facts stated above, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The civil revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the learned court below shall consider the petition, if filed by the plaintiff, under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. praying therein for return of the plaint for presentation before Debt Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the pendency of the suit before the court below and the revision application before this Court may be considered as grounds for condoning the delay under the relevant provisions of Limitation Act, in accordance with law. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)