HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1801 of 2009 Date : 17.08.2009 Between : Punjab National Bank, Warangal Branch, rep. by its Chief Manager. …..Petitioner And H.Srinivas & 6 others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1801 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri A.Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-bank and Sri Nooka Jagannadham, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Though the other respondents are served, there is no appearance on their behalf. In view of the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-bank as well as respondents 1 and 2, this revision petition is taken up for hearing at the stage of admission and is being disposed of. 2. This Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, by the petitioner-bank, seeking directions for transfer of suit in O.S.No.40 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned District Judge’s Court, Warangal, to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, to be tried along with O.A.Nos.102 of 2005 and 102 of 2007, pending on its file. 3. Necessary facts, in brief, are as under: Respondent No.1 is a Proprietory concern, engaged in the business of Electronics in the name and style of ‘Vishnu Electronics’ at J.P.N.Road in Warangal. For its business transactions, it has availed cash credit facility of Rs.30 lakhs from the petitioner-bank apart from the letter of credit with a limit of Rs.25 lakhs. The other respondents stood as guarantors for the said transaction and some of them have given their properties as security for the said credit amount. Pleading default on the part of the 1st respondent concern, the petitioner-bank has filed O.A.No.102 of 2005 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad for recovery of an amount of Rs.39,25,299.91 ps., with interest at the rate of 15% per annum on monthly rests. There is also another O.A. filed by the petitioner- bank in O.A.No.102 of 2007, against respondent No.5, who also availed cash credit facility from the petitioner- bank and defaulted in repayment. The 1st respondent herein has filed a petition, in forma pauperis, for recovery of an amount of Rs.50 lakhs towards damages from the petitioner-bank, which was initially numbered as O.P.No.1289 of 2005, and subsequently re-numbered as O.S.No.40 of 2008, and the same is pending on the file of the District Court, Warangal. It appears from the pleadings in O.S.No.40 of 2008 that in view of the steps taken by the officials of the bank in recovery proceedings, the 1st respondent has suffered damages, and hence, a claim was made. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that so far as suit in O.S.No.40 of 2008 filed by the 1st respondent is concerned, the same is coming up for filing of written statement by the petitioner-bank and as far as O.A.Nos.102 of 2005 and 102 of 2007, filed by the petitioner-bank are concerned, respondents therein have already filed counter affidavits but the trial is yet to begin. 5. In this civil revision petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-bank that as much as the claim in O.A.No.102 of 2005, which is pending on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and O.S.No.40 of 2008 pending on the file of the District Court, Warangal, arise out of the same loan transaction obtained by the 1st respondent, the claim in O.S.No.40 of 2008 filed by the 1st respondent is in the nature of a counter claim as contemplated under Sub- sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, as such, it is desirable to try the said suit along with the claim made by the petitioner-bank in O.A.No.102 of 2005, pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. It is further submitted that as much as the loan transactions covered in O.A.Nos.102 of 2005 and 102 of 2007 are of same nature, it is desirable that the suit in O.S.No.40 of 2008 be tried along with the said two O.As. The learned counsel for petitioner-bank, in support of his argument, has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Ranjan Chemicals Limited[1], wherein, a Civil Appeal filed by the State Bank of India was allowed, by holding that the claim of the loanee has to be tried as a counter claim, and in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted directions for transfer of Suit to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, to be tried along with the O.A. filed by the Bank. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri Nooka Jagannadham, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that as much as the claim made by respondent No.1 in the suit is earlier one, as such, the same cannot be tried along with the O.As. filed by the bank. Further, it is submitted that respondent No.1 is not concerned with the claim made by the bank in O.A.No.102 of 2007, so as to seek directions for trial of the suit along with said O.A. 7. It is not in dispute that the claim made by the petitioner-bank in O.A.No.102 of 2005, and the claim made by the 1st respondent in O.S.No.40 of 2008, both relate to the one and the same loan transaction availed by respondent No.1. In O.A.No.102 of 2005, it is the claim of the petitioner-bank that having availed the cash credit facility, respondent No.1 has defaulted in repaying the amounts, as such, a claim was made to recover the amounts due to be paid to the petitioner-bank. On the other hand, in O.S.No.40 of 2008, the respondent No.1 has claimed damages from the petitioner-bank, alleging that in view of the sudden steps taken by the officials of the petitioner-bank illegally in recovery proceedings, he suffered loss and his image was tarnished. 8. After a perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner- bank in O.A.No.102 of 2005 and also the averments made in the plaint filed in O.S.No.40 of 2008 by respondent No.1, I am of the view that the issues that arise for consideration in O.A.No.102 of 2005 and O.S.No.40 of 2008 are interlinked and there can be common evidence to decide such issues. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India (1 supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner-bank also squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. O.A.No.102 of 2005 filed by the petitioner- bank, which is pending before the Special Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, cannot be transferred to the District Court, Warangal, where O.S.No.40 of 2008 is pending consideration. Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above, the claim made by respondent No.1 in O.S.No.40 of 2008 can be construed as a counter claim to the claim made by the petitioner-bank in O.A.No.102 of 2005. 9. So far as the claim made by the petitioner-bank in O.A.No.102 of 2007 is concerned, undisputedly, it is the claim made against another proprietory concern i.e. M/s.Matha Electronics, owned by one Mr.T.Satish Goud i.e. respondent No.5 herein. It may be true that certain securities are common for both the loan transactions, but as much as the loan facilities are obtained by different persons, the suit in O.S.No.40 of 2008 cannot be ordered to be tried along with O.A.No.102 of 2007. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that it is evidently a fit case to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, to transfer the suit in O.S.No.40 of 2008 pending on the file of the District Court, Warangal, to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, to be tried along with O.A.No.102 of 2005. 11. Accordingly, the suit in O.S.No.40 of 2008 pending on the file of the District Court, Warangal, is hereby withdrawn and is transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, with a direction to the Tribunal, to try the same along with O.A.No.102 of 2005, treating the claim made by respondent No.1 in O.S.No.40 of 2008 as a counter claim within the meaning of Section 19 (8) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. So far as clubbing of O.A.Nos.102 of 2005 and 102 of 2007 is concerned, it is open to the Tribunal to consider the same if any applications are moved by any of the parties with regard to such claim. 12. Subject to above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th August 2009 Ivd/Lur/ajr [1] (2007) 1 SCC 97