Rajiv Sachdeva vs State Bank Of India And Ors. on 25 September, 1998
4. Mr. Dhrub Narain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel firstly submitted that the Court below failed to consider that the plaintiffs suit was not simple suit for money decree, but it was a mortgage suit in which decree was claimed under Order XXXIV, Rule 4 of the CPC and as such it is not covered under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 thereinafter referred to as 'the Debt Recovery Act). Learned counsel secondly submitted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the issue involved in a mortgage suit. Learned counsel thirdly submitted that the Court below has committed grave error of law in not transferring the counter claim and keeping it in the Court for trial and disposal. According to the learned counsel either the suit could not have been transferred or it would have been transferred along with the counter claim in
order to avoid conflicting judgment. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the case of Venkateshwara Textiles Trader v. Canara Bank, AIR 1998 Andh Pra 282.