B.K.Rathi, J. - (1.) This revision under Section 115, C.P.C. has been preferred against the order, dated 3.1.1998 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad in Suit No. 1031 of 1992. The facts enumerated in the revision are as follows : "The opposite party, Bank, filed the Original Suit No. 1031 of 1992 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad for recovery of Rs. 26,63,631.35 p. against the revisionists. The suit was transferred to the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) for disposal. The revisionists contested the suit. One of the pleas taken by them was that the entire transaction of loan took place at Delhi and cause of action for the suit arose at Delhi, that, therefore, the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad, has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Preliminary issue was framed on this point and the case was fixed for disposal of that preliminary issue."
(2.) In the meantime. (The) Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. 1993, (Act No. 51 of 1993) (hereinafter called as "Act") was enforced w.e.f. 27th August. 1993. On the enforcement of this Act. the plaintiff opposite party moved an application 96C under Section 31 of the Act to transfer the suit to the Tribunal, constituted under the Act. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) by the impugned order has allowed the application and has ordered that the suit be transferred for disposal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at New Delhi under Section 31 of the Act. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.
(3.) I have heard Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar'. learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri D.P. Bahadur, learned counsel for the opposite-party and have perused the record.;