[2025:RJ-JP:1726] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9404/2016 State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur, Having Its Branch At Weir, Through Its Chief Mananger., Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus Baijnath Garg S/o Shri Rajaram Garh, Ex-Manager, State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur, Branch Weir, House No. 121, Vinoha Basti, Sriganganagar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sonal Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arnav Singh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 10/01/2025 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 04.06.2016 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Bayana in civil suit No.16/11, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act of 1993') has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff filed a suit against the respondent-defendant (for short 'the defendant') for recovery of Rs.10,98,609.05/-. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that as per the Act of 1993, jurisdiction to adjudicate the due amount of more than Rs.10,00,000/- vests in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, so plaintiff had filed an application before the trial court to transfer the present suit to Debts [2025:RJ-JP:1726] (2 of 2) [CW-9404/2016] Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the defendant in his reply also admitted the fact that the present suit can only be adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal but trial court vide order dated 04.06.2016 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on cost of Rs.2,000/-. So order dated 04.06.2016 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Punjab National Bank, Dasuya Vs. Chajju Ram and Others reported in (2000) 6 Supreme Court 655. Learned counsel for the defendant opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendant. It is an admitted position that the present suit is only triable by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, so the order dated 04.06.2016 passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside. So, the petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed and order dated 04.06.2016 passed by the trial court is set aside. The trial court is directed to return the suit to the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presenting the same before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /279