KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) THE suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants appears to be a counter blast against the Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'bank") in proceeding against the plaintiffs for enforcement of certain guarantees and recovery of money filed by the bank owed by the plaintiffs to the bank which is pending disposal before the Debt Recovery tribunal at Bombay. ( 2 ) TO overcome the claim of the bank the plaintiffs resorted to filing an original suit on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum for a declaration that the guarantees given by the plaintiffs and the deed of hypothecation is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought for a decree for damages amounting to Rs. 2 crores. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs also stated that the documents between the Global Energy Limited and the bank was not binding on the plaintiffs. Curiously Global Energy Limited is not the plaintiff before the Trial Court. ( 4 ) THE plaintiffs are Belgundi Cements Limited and three directors. The contention of the plaintiffs was that the documents executed by the plaintiffs were signed in blank by the plaintiffs and misused fraudulently by the defendants. It is also alleged that the 1st defendant got various blank documents and forms signed by the plaintiffs on false hopes. In short, the case of the plaintiffs was that a fraud has been played by the officers of the bank in obtaining guarantees and hypothecation in blank forms and later filled up by the officers of the bank. ( 5 ) THE plaintiffs also filed LA. Nos. I and II under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for an ad interim injunction against the defendants not to act upon the documents like corporate guarantee dated 2-4-1998 given by Global Energy Limited and personal guarantee dated 2-4-1998 given by the plaintiffs 2 and 4 jointly and severally executed by Global energy Limited. ( 6 ) THE Trial Court dismissed LA. No. I in an elaborate order. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal. ( 7 ) MR. ( 6 ) THE Trial Court dismissed LA. No. I in an elaborate order. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal. ( 7 ) MR. Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellants plaintiffs submitted that the officers of the bank had misled the plaintiffs and pressurised the plaintiffs to execute documents in blank and therefore the plaintiffs had no alternative except to file the suit against the officers of the bank and seek relief in the interlocutory application. ( 8 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the respondent 1 Mr. Ramadas submitted the following points for consideration. (i) The transactions entered into by Global Energy Limited with the bank is in the form of a guarantee given by Global energy Limited. Curiously Global Energy Limited is not a party in the suit. (ii) The bank had sought to recover monies from the plaintiffs and Global Energy Limited. Since no settlement was forthcoming the bank was forced to approach the Debt Recovery tribunal at Bombay and the Tribunal is seized of the matter as against the plaintiffs. The object of the exercise of the plaintiffs was only an afterthought and a counter-blast against the bank. (iii) The bank itself has not been made a party in the suit but only officers of the bank has been made a party and therefore the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties. (iv) The plaintiffs have not entered appearance so far before the debt Recovery Tribunal and have rushed to the Civil Court which is not maintainable in law. (v) Whatever is sought for by the plaintiffs could have been easily agitated before the Tribunal. (vi) The cause of action never arose at Belgaum and all transactions entered into by the plaintiffs were at Bombay and on this ground alone the suit is liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) THIS is a curious case where the plaintiffs have filed a suit for Declaration that certain documents executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the bank as void without even impleading the bank. Only the officers of the bank have been impleaded as defendants. The transaction is between the bank and the plaintiffs and if the bank is not made a party no relief can be granted against the bank. Only the officers of the bank have been impleaded as defendants. The transaction is between the bank and the plaintiffs and if the bank is not made a party no relief can be granted against the bank. ( 10 ) UNDOUBTEDLY when allegations are made against the bank, the bank is a necessary party and any order passed by the Court will not be binding on the bank. ( 11 ) THERE is no doubt that the cause of action never arose in Belgaum. All the transactions have taken place only in Bombay and therefore the suit could only be filed in Bombay if in accordance with law. ( 12 ) SECTION 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") has been amended by Act No. 1 of 2000 with effect from 17-1-2000. Section 19 is a comprehensive section after the amendment which includes claims by the defendant for damages and other such ancillary claims if any. ( 13 ) THE relevant section reads as follows. "19 (5) The defendant shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Tribunal may permit, present a written statement of his defence. (6) Where the defendant claims to set-off against the applicant's demand any ascertained sum of money legally recoverable by him from such applicant, the defendant may, at the first hearing of the application, but not afterwards unless permitted by the Tribunal, present a written statement containing the particulars of the debt sought to be set-off. (7) The written statement shall have the same effect as a plaint in a cross-suit so as to enable the Tribunal to pass a final order in respect both of the original claim and of the set-off. (8) A defendant in an application may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under sub-section (6), set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the applicant, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the applicant either before or after the filing of the application but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not. (9) A counter-claim under sub-section (8) shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Tribunal to pass a final order on the same application, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim". ( 14 ) IT is clear from the above amendments that the appellants-plaintiffs are perfectly at liberty to make a counter-claim which is in the nature of a claim for damages and it is within the realm of the Tribunal to adjudicate on this matter as a counter-suit. ( 15 ) FOR all these reasons there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. It would be appropriate for the plaintiffs to enter appearance in the matter that is pending before the Tribunal and raise all the contentions raised before the Trial Court as expeditiously as possible --- *** --- .