In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 22 - 1 – 2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice S.J.Mukhopadhaya and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.Venugopal O.S.A.Nos.211 to 214 of 2007 S.V.Subramaniam .. Appellant in all the OSAs. (4th Defendant) vs. 1. M/s.Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, rep. by its Director Mr.K.Viswanath, First Floor, No.56, Nandi Durga Road, Benson Town, Bangalore-560 046. 2. MG Brothers Lorry Services, Rep. by its Partners, YMCA Buildings, 2nd Floor, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. 3. Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Transports Private Limited, Represented by its Board of Directors, No.158, Shivalaya Buildings, Commander-in-Chief Road, Chennai-600 105. 4. Punjab National Bank Limited, Periamet Branch, Chennai-600 003. .. Respondents in all the OSAs. (Plaintiffs and Defendants 1,2, and 3) Original Side Appeal No.211 of 2007 against the order of this Court dated 17.7.2007 in O.A.No.729 of 2007 in C.S.No.517 of 2007. Original Side Appeal No.212 of 2007 against the order of this Court dated 17.7.2007 in Appln.No.4144 of 2007 in C.S.No.517 of 2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Original Side Appeal No.213 of 2007 against the order of this Court dated 17.7.2007 in Appln.No.4145 of 2007 in C.S.No.517 of 2007. Original Side Appeal No.214 of 2007 against the order of this Court dated 17.7.2007 in Appln.No.4349 of 2007 in C.S.No.517 of 2007. For appellant :Mr.N.R.Chandran, Senior Counsel and Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Kannan For respondent-1 : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel, for M/s.Sivam Sivanandraj For respondent-4 : Mr.G.Masilamani, Senior Counsel for M/s.V.Girish Kumar Common Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya,J As all these appeals have been preferred by the common appellant (S.V.Subramaniam) (who is the fourth defendant in the suit in C.S.No.517 of 2007) against the common order dated 17.7.2007 passed in Application Nos.4144, 4145 and 4349 of 2007 and O.A.No.729 of 2007 in C.S.No.517 of 2007, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The suit in C.S.No.517 of 2007 was preferred by the plaintiff (the first respondent herein) for the following relief: (a) Declaration that order dated 10.8.2006 modified by order dated 30.8.2006 and 31.8.2006 in I.A.No.336 of 2006 in T.A.No.1 of 2004 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Chennai, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff's property described in Schedule A. (b) Declaration that Sale Certificate No.53 of 2006, dated 31.8.2006 issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Chennai, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff's property described in Schedule A and (c) Permanent injunction restraining the fourth defendant, his men, agents, servants or assigns, from in any manner directly or indirectly acting upon the Sale Certificate No.53 of 2006, dated 31.8.2006 issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Chennai, and dealing with the said property described in Schedule A, in any manner whatsoever. 3. In the aforesaid suit, the first respondent-plaintiff preferred the following applications: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) Original Application No.729 of 2007: preferred for interim injunction restraining the fourth respondent/fourth defendant, his men, agents, servants or assigns, from in any manner directly or indirectly acting upon the Sale Certificate No.53 of 2006, dated 31.8.2006 issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Chennai, developing and dealing with the property described in Schedule A to the Judge's Summons in the Application, in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit. (ii) Application No.4144 of 2007 : preferred for stay of the operation of the Sale Certificate No.53 of 2006, dated 31.8.2006, issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Chennai, pertaining to Schedule A property, mentioned in Judge's Summons to the Application, pending disposal of the suit. (iii) Application No.4145 of 2007 : preferred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for grant of leave for reserving its right to claim further consequential relief. A Separate application in Original Application No.4349 of 2007 was preferred by the appellant/fourth defendant under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC to reject the plaint, as the Court having no jurisdiction. All the four applications were heard together and by the impugned common order dated 17.7.2007, the learned single Judge while allowing the applications in Appln.Nos.4144 and 4145 of 2007 and O.A.No.729 of 2007. preferred by the first respondent-plaintiff, rejected the applications in Appln.No.4349 of 2007 preferred by the appellant-fourth defendant, which has given rise to the present four Original Side Appeals. 4. Before noticing the rival contentions and the issues involved in the present appeals, it is desirable to notice the relevant facts as mentioned hereunder: (i) One M/s.M.G.M.Brothers, a Partnership firm, on 28.2.1964, purchased the property under Document No.1457/64, S.R.O. Bangalore North, land in S.No.43/3, Hebbal Village (Kasabu), Bangalore Taluk, measuring 2 acres 3-1/2 guntas having boundary: East: Bellary Road, West: K.Nanjappan lands in S.No.43/2, North: small part of land measuring 3.5 guntas sold to Nanjappa and M.G.Brothers jointly, and South: Military Dairy Farms in S.No.42. According to the first respondent-plaintiff, on the same date, i.e. on 28.2.1964, another small part of the land measuring 3.5 guntas in S.No.43/3, Hebbal Village (Kasabu), Bangalore Taluk, was also sold, which has been shown in the North side of the other sale deed dated 28.2.1964, as earlier referred to. (ii) On 16.2.1987, an agreement was reached between M/s.M.G.Brothers, represented by partner and power agent of other partners, namely M.P.Narasappa, with M/s.Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Transport Private Limited, by which it was agreed to sell and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transfer the assets, both movable and immovable properties of the firm and acknowledged receipt of advance money. The possession of the property was also handed over and M/s.M.G.Brothers agreed to execute necessary conveyance deed as and when required by M/s.Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Transport Private Limited. Subsequently, the entire sale consideration was given, but no sale deed in favour of M/s.Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Transport Private Limited was executed. The original title deeds were handed over to the said Company by M/s.M.G.Brothers. Schedule B to the agreement refers to various immovable properties. (iii) On 27.11.1987, M/s.Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Transport Private Limited obtained loan from M/s.New Bank of India (subsequently merged with M/s.Punjab National Bank) for carrying on business as transporters. The various properties including the property at Bangalore, were mortgaged by M/s.Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Transport Private Limited, which also handed over the original title deeds to the Bank on 11.2.1988. (iv) M/s.New Bank of India filed a suit on 1st March, 1990 at Bombay High Court, namely C.S.No.650 of 1990 against the borrower for Rs.1,31,65,122.09 in respect of the term loan and Rs.1,81,56,351.67 towards cash credit hypothecation and for further interest. (v) A case under the Payment of Gratuity Act, was instituted against M/s.M.G.Brothers and the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Assistant Commissioner (Central), Bellary passed an order on 31.8.1990 impleading M/s.Dhanalakshmi Consolidates, since M/s.M.G.Brothers sold the properties to it. (vi) On 16.7.1991, Mr.M.P.Narasappa, Partner of M/s.M.G.Brothers, appeared before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in M.P.No.7 of 1990, wherein during his examination, he admitted that the agreement of sale dated 16.2.1987 with M/s.Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Transports Private Limited, was executed and the original documents were handed over to the said Company. (vii) According to the plaintiff, M/s.M.G.Brothers Lorry Service, on 22.8.1994 executed nine sale deeds. By one of the sale deeds, it sold to T.N.Chandra 8 guntas of land in S.No.43/3, Kaneshamari, Hebbal Village (Kasaba), Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk with three square meters of house with AC sheet building, boundaries by East: Bellary Road, West: Private property, North: portion of land sold to T.Barathi and South: portion of land in S.No.43/3 sold to T.N.Ramesh, Document No.4686/94. The second sale deed was executed on the same day by M/s.M.G.Brothers Lorry Service in favour of one Smt.Rukmani.Manoharlal, 8-1/2 guntas of land in S.No.43/3, Kaneshamari portion of 502 Hebbal Village (Kasaba) Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk with three Sq.Mts. of house with AC Sheet bounded by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: portion of land sold to Manoherlal K.Narang in S.No.43/3, South: lands in S.No.43/3, sold to Ravi in Document No.3222/94. The third sale deed was executed by M/s.M.G.Brothers Lorry Service on the same day in favour of N.Ravi and sold 8-1/2 guntas of land in S.No.43/3, Kaneshamari portion of 502, Hebbal Village (Kasaba) Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, with three Sq.Mts. of AC Sheet house, bounded by East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: portion of land sold to Rukmani Manoharlal in S.No.43/3, South: lands sold to Neelakanta Nadar - vide Document No.4680/94. The fourth sale deed was executed by M/s.M.G.Brothers Lorry Service in favour of T.N.Chandra in respect of eight guntas of land on the same day in S.No.43/3, Kaneshamari portion of 502 Hebbal Village, (Kasaba) Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, with three Sq.Mts. of AC sheet house, bounded by East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: portion of land sold to Susheelamma and South: portion of land in S.No.43/3, Document No.4692/94. The fifth sale deed was executed by M/s.M.G.Brothers Lorry Service in favour of T.N.Bramresh, in respect of eight guntas of land on the same day in S.No.43/3, Kaneshamari portion of 502 Hebbal Village, (Kasaba) Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, with three Sq.Mts. of AC sheet house, bounded by East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: portion of land sold to T.N.Chandra in S.No.43/3, and South: portion of land in S.No.43/3 sold to T.M.Thirumalesh - Document No.4684/94. The sixth sale deed was executed by M/s.M.G.Brothers Lorry Service in favour of T.N.Thirumalesh (plaintiff's vendor's vendor) in respect of eight guntas of land on the same day, with 3 Sq.Mts. AC sheet house in S.No.43/3, Kaneshamari portion of 502 Hebbal Village, (Kasaba) Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, bounded by East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: portion of land sold to T.N.Bramresh and South: by Village Road - Document No.4682/94. The seventh sale deed was executed by M/s.M.G.Brothers Lorry Service in favour of Susheelamma, in respect of 8-1/2 guntas of land with 3 Sq.Mts. AC sheet house, on the same day in S.No.43/3, Kaneshamari portion of 502 Hebbal Village, (Kasaba) Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, bounded by East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: portion of land sold to Neelakanda Naidu and South: portion of land in S.No.43/3 sold to Bharathi, Document No.5944/94. The eighth sale deed was executed by M/s.M.G.Brothers Lorry Service in favour of Manoharlal K.Narang, in respect of eight guntas of land with 3 Sq.Mts. AC sheet house, on the same day in S.No.43/3, Kaneshamari portion of 502 Hebbal Village, (Kasaba) Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, bounded by East: Bellary Road, West: private property, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ North: by Road and South: portion of land in S.No.43/3 sold to Rukmani Manoharlal - Document No.4688/94. The ninth sale deed was executed by M/s.M.G.Brothers Lorry Service in favour of Susheelammal in respect of 8-1/2 guntas of land with 3 Sq.Mts. AC sheet house, on the same day in S.No.43/3, Kaneshamari portion of 502 Hebbal Village, (Kasaba) Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, bounded by East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: portion of land sold to N.Ravi in S.No.43/3 and South: portion of land in S.No.43/3, Document No.5946/94 sold to Neelakanta Naidu. (viii) Subsequently, the following properties (including the above said nine properties) were purchased by M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Limited in between June and August 1995, as detailed hereunder: On 7.7.1995, T.N.Tirumalesh sold to M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd., 8712 Sq.Ft. and 3 Sq.Mts. House in Kaneshamari bearing No.710/801, Hebbal Village, bounded by: East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: property belonging to T.N.Ramaresh and South: Village Road, Doc.No.3702/95. On 5.7.1995, T.N.Bramresh sold to M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd., Doc.No.3635/95–land bearing Kaneshamari No.502 presently bearing No.712/801, Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 8712 Sq.Ft. with 3 Sq.Mts., bounded by: East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: property belonging to T.N.Chandran and South: property to TM.Thirumalesh, measuring 8712 Sq.Ft. On 9.8.1995, T.Bharathi sold to M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd., Doc.No.4696/95–land bearing Kaneshamari No.502 presently bearing No.709/801, Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 8712 Sq.Ft. with 3 Sq.Mts. house, bounded by: East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: property belonging to M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd. and South: property belonging to Chandran. On 19.7.1995, N.Ravi sold to M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd., Doc.No.4337/95–land bearing Kaneshamari No.502 presently bearing No.715/801, Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 9256 Sq.Ft. with 3 Sq.Mts. house, bounded by: East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: property belonging to Rukmani Manoharlal and South: property belonging to Neelakanta Naidu. On 16.8.1995, Smt.Rukmani Manoharlal sold to M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd., Doc.No.4832/95–land bearing Kaneshamari No.502 presently bearing No.717/801, Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 9256 Sq.Ft. with 3 Sq.Mts. house, bounded by: East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: property belonging to Manoharlal K.Narang and South: property belonging to N.Ravi. On 9.8.1995, T.N.Chandra sold to M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd., Doc.No.4695/95–land bearing Kaneshamari No.502 presently bearing No.713/801, Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ measuring 8712 Sq.Ft. with 3 Sq.Mts. house, bounded by: East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: property belonging to Smt.T.Bharathi and South: property belonging to T.N.Bhramaresh. On 14.6.1995, Sushalamma sold to M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd., land bearing S.No.47/3, Kaneshamari portion of 502, presently bearing No.716/801, Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 9256 Sq.Ft. with 3 Sq.Mts. house, bounded by: East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: property belonging to N.Neelakanta Naidu and South: property belonging to T.Bharathi— Doc.No.2896/95. On 17.7.1995, Manoharlal K.Narang sold to M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd., Doc.No.4969/95, land bearing Kaneshamari No.502, presently bearing No.711/801, Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 8712 Sq.Ft. with 3 Sq.Mts. house, bounded by: East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: Road and South: property belonging to Rukmani Manoharlal. On 16.8.1995, M.Neelakanta Naidu sold to M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd., Doc.No.4831/95, land bearing Kaneshamari No.502, presently bearing No.714/801, Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 4644 Sq.Ft. with 3 Sq.Mts. house, bounded by: East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: property of Ravi and South: property belonging to M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd. On 17.8.1995, M.Neelakanta Naidu sold to M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd., Doc.No.4870/95, land bearing Kaneshamari No.502, presently bearing No.709/801, Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 4612 Sq.Ft. with 3 Sq.Mts. house, bounded by: East: Bellary Road, West: private property, North: property of Ravi and South: property of M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd. (ix) Pursuant to an earlier agreement of sale executed between M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Ltd. with M/s.Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Pvt. Ltd. on 30.12.1999, the sale deed was executed on 5.7.2000 for consideration of Rs.1 crore and 55 lakhs. The further case of the first respondent-plaintiff is that on 5.7.2000, M/s.Arcus Technology (P) Limited sold to the first respondent- plaintiff by Document No.4065/2000, the land bearing house list No.58/709/801/502, being a portion of Kaneshamari No.502, Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk at CMC Bhataryanaaura ad-measuring 370 feet x 182.5 feet + 253 feet 2 equivalent to 80567.5 Sq.ft. bounded on the East: Bellary Road, West: private property; North: private property and South: private property. (x) In the meantime, a Company Petition in C.P.No.139 of 1991 was preferred, in which, this Court, on 18.10.1997, passed an order to wind up M/s.Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Transport Private Limited and the suit pending in Bombay High Court was ordered to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transferred to this Court and on transfer of the suit pending in Bombay High Court in C.S.No.650 of 1990, it was re-numbered as C.S.No.276 of 1998 before this Court. In the said suit C.S.No.276 of 1998, in the end of 2002, the Bank (now on its merger with Punjab National Bank) filed an application in Appln.No.4602 of 2002 to transfer the suit C.S.No.276 of 1998 pending in this Court to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, which was ordered by this Court on 19.11.2002. Pursuant to the same, the case was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai and re-numbered as T.A.No.1 of 2004. (xi) In the suit before the Bombay High Court which was subsequently transferred to this Court and then to Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai as T.A.No.1 of 2004, according to the first respondent-plaintiff, it was not impleaded as a party. In the said case, the Bank filed I.A.No.336 of 2006 on 30.6.2006 to sell the properties of different places including the properties situated at Bombay, Bangalore, Andhra Pradesh, etc. including the properties in question, for Rs.2 crores to S.V.Subramaniam (the appellant herein). One Devendra, a partner of M/s.M.G.Brothers appeared on 1.8.2006 and stated that they were aware of the mortgage and expressed 'no objection' for the sale. (xii) In view of the agreement reached between the parties, the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, passed an order on 10.8.2006 for sale of all the said properties situated at different places in India, for a sum of Rs.2 crores and directed to issue the Sale Certificate on payment of Rs.2 crores. (xiii) On 29.8.2006, a Memo was filed by the Bank stating that S.V.Subramaniam (the appellant herein) was aware that the original documents with regard to the properties, were misplaced by the Bank and that he should not insist on the production of the original documents. On 30.8.2006, the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai recorded the Memo of the Bank and directed to handover the possession to S.V.Subramaniam (the appellant herein) and the amount of Rs.2 crores deposited by the appellant was directed to be kept in short deposit for three months for the purpose of satisfying the claim of the workmen, if any. (xiv) On the next date, i.e. on 31.8.2006, the DRT-II, Chennai directed that a sum of Rs.20 lakhs to be deposited being the value of two properties belonging to Dhanalakshmi Company for settlement of workmen dues. The Recovery Officer issued the Sale Certificate on 31.8.2006 and by force, the possession of the property which was claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiff, vide sale deed dated 5.7.2000, was taken on 4.9.2006. (xv) The first respondent-plaintiff initially filed a Writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition in W.P.No.40073 of 2006 before this Court on 16.10.2006, wherein, initially, interim order was passed on 19.10.2006, restraining the respondents therein from dealing with the property. In the said Writ Petition, a petition was filed by S.V.Subramanaim (the appellant herein) on 26.10.2006 to vacate the interim order and the interim order having been vacated on 19.12.2006, the first respondent-plaintiff preferred Writ Appeal No.62 of 2007, but both the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal were heard and dismissed on 6.6.2007 with the following observation: "36. In view of our findings ... holding the writ petition, not maintainable, we left open all other points agitated by both the parties before this Court so as to be decided by an appropriate forum." Thereafter, after the dismissal of the aforesaid Writ Petition and Writ Appeal, the first respondent-plaintiff instead of moving before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, "DRT") or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, "DRAT"), preferred the suit in question, namely C.S.No.517 of 2007 before this Court, for the relief as noticed above and in the suit, already interim order had been passed and a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was preferred by the fourth defendant (the appellant herein), was rejected, giving rise to all these Original Side Appeals. 5. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-fourth defendant, mainly took the plea that the suit was not maintainable in the Original Side of this Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, as it is "suit for land" and all the suit properties are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent-Bank (Punjab National Bank), in fact, made elaborate argument, which was adopted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent-plaintiff and the following plea was taken by Mr.G.Masilamani while he prayed to dismiss the present suit : (i) There is an alternative remedy under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, "1993 Act") and not only the party to the case, but "any person" aggrieved by the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, can prefer an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the appeal before the DRAT is not an efficacious remedy. (ii) "Doctrine of Election" is not permissible to the plaintiff in view of Section 18 of the 1993 Act. When a remedy is available, a person is supposed to resort to such a remedy, and he should do so. If it is allowed, it will give room for "forum shopping", which is not permissible. It is a 'special provision' for 'special remedy', as a matter of policy to achieve the larger positive benefit with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reference to Indian context of Banking business. The 1993 Act is a special Legislation made by the Legislature carving out a special proceeding, excluding the general or common law remedy. The 1993 Act is a well-defined law upheld by the Supreme Court and if the law declares a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in such a manner. The general law or civil suit, therefore is barred. (iii) The power already with the civil Court, once divested with the civil Court by the 1993 Act, cannot be allowed to continue with more rigorous way, that too, to set aside an order passed by the Tribunal. Nobody can work out the remedy to move before a civil Court which has been divested with powers. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the fourth respondent-Bank, both while referring to Sections 17 and 18 of the 1993 Act and the dates/events, also submitted as follows: (a) The list of events will show that the plaintiff is the purchaser "pendete-lite". (b) The Bank has not played fraud. It cannot be imagined that the Bank itself played fraud. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent- plaintiff, while referring to the original plaint as was filed before the Bombay High Court, the amended plaint fled before the DRT, copies of one one or other sale deed(s) dated 28.2.1964, the order passed by the DRT on one or other date(s), made the following submissions: (a) The plaintiff having alleged fraud played by the parties before the DRT and the Recovery Officer to obtain one or other order, a suit against such order of the DRT/Recovery Officer is maintainable. (b) The relief sought for in the suit cannot be termed to be the "suit for land". Therefore, this Court from its Original Side, has jurisdiction to decide the issue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. (c) The appeal under Section 20 of the 1993 Act against a consent decree, is not maintainable, and therefore, the remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the 1993 Act is not available to the plaintiff. (d) Section 18 of the 1993 Act does not bar a civil Court to give a declaration relating to the fraud, as the DRT is not required to determine such issue under Section 17 of the said Act. (e) The DRT passed the order pursuant to which the properties having been sold, without auction-sale and without following the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, such order and sale is a nullity in the eye of law. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent- plaintiff, while highlighted the facts to allege fraud played by the Bank, also placed reliance on the decisions of the High Court(s) and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Supreme Court in support of his plea. 7. In a nut-shell, the following facts were highlighted: (a) M/s.M.G.Brothers Lorry Service purchased the properties in S.No.43/3, Hebbal Village (Kasabu), Bangalore Taluk, by two sale deeds, both dated 28.2.1964. One sale deed related to the land measuring 2 acres 3-1/2 guntas in S.No.43/3 and the other sale deed related to 3-1/2 guntas in S.No.43/3, reference of which, has been made in the northern boundary of sale deed dated 28.2.1964 in respect of the above said 2 acres and 3-1/2 guntas of land. (b) In the suit C.S.No.650 of 1990 preferred by M/s.New Bank of India (merged with Punjab and National Bank) on 1.3.1990 before the Bombay High Court, reference to different lands have been shown therein, including a piece of land measuring 3-1/2 guntas, out of which S.No.43/3 is situated at Hebbal Village, (Kasaba), Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Reference of