G. T. Nanavati, J. - (1.) Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The appellant bank filed two civil suits - one against Ballabh Das and Sons and its partners and the other against Ballabh Das and Co. and its partners - in the Court of District Judge at Jaipur for recovery of its dues of Rs. 75,46,921/- and Rs. 56,36,200/- on 24-3-83 and 2-7-84 respectively. During the pendency of the suits, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Ordinance, 1993 was promulgated by the President of India on 24-6-1993. It was replaced by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short referred to as 'the Act'). After Debt Recovery Tribunal was constituted under the Act at Jaipur, the appellants made two applications on 20-9-94 to the Court for getting the two suits transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court by two separate orders allowed the applications and directed transfer of those suits to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jaipur but retained the counter- claim filed by the respondents in Civil Suit No. 152 of 1988.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved by those orders the respondents filed two revisions applications (669 of 1995 and 670 of 1995) before the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court held that the question whether the amounts claimed in the suits are legally recoverable or not is a question of fact and can be adjudicated only after recording evidence. It further held that whether the amounts claimed fall within the meaning of the term 'debt' as defined by Section 2(g) of the Act is also a question of fact and till those facts are decided by the Court the provisions of the Act cannot be said to have become applicable to the suits on and from the date on which the Tribunal at Jaipur was established. It also held that Civil Suit No. 152 of 1988 in which a counter-claim has been filed could not have been transferred to the Tribunal, as no application was made under Order 8, Rule 6 C of the Code of Civil Procedure for exclusion of the counter-claim and also because no such application could be made after framing of issues. Taking this view the High Court allowed both the revision applications and by a common judgment set aside the orders passed by the District Court.;