JUDGMENT This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11th Sep. 98 passed by Shri M.D. Mahilkar, VI Addl. Judge, to the Court of Distt. Judge, Gwalior. Learned counsel contends that respondent No. 4 filed a suit against the petitioner for realisation of Rs. 92,26,629.35/- on 15.4.87 which was pending before the Court of II Additional Distt. Judge, Morena. The petitioner filed a suit against the respondent No. 4 and other respondents on 15.11.87 for declaration and mandatory injunction which was registered as case No. 23-A/88 which was pending before VI Addl. Distt. Judge, Gwalior. An application for transfer was moved and this Court allowed the application and directed that the case No. 5-B/87 pending before the Court of Morena be transferred to VI Addl. District Judge, Gwalior. As the suits filed by Banks and Financial Institutions are triable by the Tribunal the suit filed by respondent No. 4 was transferred to Tribunal at Jabalpur whereas the suit filed by the petitioner i.e. 23-A/88 remained with the VI Addl. District Judge, Gwalior. The petitioner moved an application under Section 151 CPC to either transfer the case to Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur or the suit pending in the Tribunal be called back. The trial Court by the impugned order directed the petitioner to approach this Court. I have heard and learned counsel and perused the impugned order. It is apparent from the perusal of the provisions of Recovery of Debt Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1933 that exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred under Section 17 to entertain and decide the application from the Bank and Financial Institution for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions to the tribunal. Section 18 provides a bar with respect to the matters specified in section 17. Section 31 provides for transfer of pending cases. Under this Section every suit or other proceedings pending before any Court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under the Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action where on it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal. Thus, it is apparent that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to suit or proceedings mentioned under section 17 and the pending cases stand transferred under section 31. Consequently, the suit filed by the petitioner which according to the learned counsel himself is for declaration and mandatory injunction cannot lie before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. It cannot, therefore be transferred nor it can stand transferred under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon AIR 1998 Andhra Pradesh 282 (Venkateswara Textiles Traders & Printers v. Canara Bank and Another). The facts of that case are entirely different; and as such this case does not help learned counsel. I am, therefore, of the view that suit filed by the petitioner for declaration and mandatory injunction pending before the VIth Addl. Distt. Judge cannot be transferred to the Tribunal. The revision petition is therefore, without force and is accordingly dismissed.