., J. ( 1 ) THE state bank of hyderabad has filed this petition against the interim Order passed by the debts recovery tribunal, bangalore, on la. No. 5, dated 31-7-1998 and confirmed by the debts recovery appellate tribunal, Bombay in appeal No. 354 of 1998. ( 2 ) THE writ petitioner filed an application before the debts recovery tribunal in o. a. No. 725 of 1997 against respondents 4 to 8 for recovery of a sum of rs. 48,00,205/ -. The bank also obtained an interim Order dated 7-7-1997 under which the singareni collieries company limited, 10th respondent herein was directed to deposit a sum of rs. 9,98,000/- with the bank. Meanwhile, one Sri G. Sambaiah Claiming to be the creditor of one m. Krishna reddy, 2nd respondent before the tribunal, had obtained a prohibitory Order in o. s. No. 1183 of 1997 in the city civil court, hyderabad, against the very singareni collieries under Order 38, rule 5 of the cpc not to part with the said money. Since there were two conflicting orders, the said singareni collieries filed a writ petition in 29180 of 1997 before the High Court of andhra pradesh against the state bank of hyderabad and other respondents for a direction to obey which of the conflicting orders. Learned single judge of the andhra pradesh High Court by his Order dated 18-2-1998 directed singareni collieries to deposit the amount with the writ petitioner's bank who in turn was directed to invest the money in term deposit for a period of 45 days and renewed periodically; the disbursement of the said amount should await the final orders of the debts recovery tribunal; the said g. Sambaiah aggrieved by the said Order filed w. a. No. 546 of 1998 before the division bench of andhra pradesh High Court. The division bench, by its Order dated 9-4-1998, set aside the Order of the learned single judge and directed the said g. Sambaiah to make necessary application before the debts recovery tribunal regarding his claim in Order to resolve the conflict. In pursuance of the Order of the division bench, the said g. Sambaiah filed i. a. No. 5 as stated, before the debts recovery tribunal. In pursuance of the Order of the division bench, the said g. Sambaiah filed i. a. No. 5 as stated, before the debts recovery tribunal. The writ petitioner herein who was a party to the proceedings before the andhra pradesh High Court, both before the learned single judge as well as the division bench, surprisingly without filing any written objections to la. No. 5, it appears, argued that la. No. 5 was not maintainable on the ground that under the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, there was no scope for third parties to make such an application and the tribunal had no jurisdiction whatsoever. The said objection was overruled by the tribunal holding that, having regard to the provisions of the cpc, application was maintainable. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, bank filed an appeal before the debts recovery appellate tribunal, Bombay. The appellate tribunal also agreed with the reasoning of the tribunal and dismissed the appeal. These two orders are challenged on the same grounds raised before the tribunals below. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-bank in this court is, the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993 is only meant for the benefit of financial institutions or banking institutions and no third party is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the tribunal for any Order in his favour. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court (Allahabad Bank v Canara Bank and another) and the madras High Court (Ms. Nivedita and others v South Indian Bank Limited and others), in that regard and contended that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain la. No. 5. ( 5 ) IT is unnecessary to go into this contention as in my view, the matter is concluded by the division bench judgment of the andhra pradesh High Court which was passed in the appeal filed by Sri G. Sambaiah, the applicant in la. No. 5 against the petitioner-bank herein. The division bench of the andhra pradesh High Court has held, after setting aside the Order of the learned single judge contents of which are referred above by me, as under: "the debts recovery tribunal shall deal with the matter afresh in accordance with law". No. 5 against the petitioner-bank herein. The division bench of the andhra pradesh High Court has held, after setting aside the Order of the learned single judge contents of which are referred above by me, as under: "the debts recovery tribunal shall deal with the matter afresh in accordance with law". ( 6 ) AFTER noting the facts of the case, the division bench again has observed at page 2 of its order, the relevant portion being "the appellant would be at liberty to file the necessary application before the debts recovery tribunal within a period of two weeks from the date of hearing. In default of filing such an application, however, it would be deemed that the appellant is not desirous to proceed with the matter any further and the tribunal would be at liberty to deal with the matter in terms of the orders of the learned single judge". A reading of this will admit of no doubt that g. Sambaiah was directed to make an application before the debts recovery tribunal which had passed a contrary Order to that of the Order of the civil judge and obtain necessary orders on merits. The bank does not seem to have raised any contention in the first place before the division bench about the maintainability of the application before the tribunal nor a reading of the Order indicates that the question about the maintainability was also to be decided by the tribunal. However, learned counsel for the petitioner before this court made a submission that the question about the maintainability of the application was left open to be decided by the tribunal. I am not in agreement with the said contention. In the backdrop of the facts stated and in terms of the orders of the division bench extracted above, I am convinced that the division bench had directed the tribunal to decide the application on merits without going into the question of maintainability. I am not in agreement with the said contention. In the backdrop of the facts stated and in terms of the orders of the division bench extracted above, I am convinced that the division bench had directed the tribunal to decide the application on merits without going into the question of maintainability. ( 7 ) INSOFAR as the decisions referred to by the learned counsel to contend that under the scheme of the debts recovery act, third parties cannot make any such applications is concerned, the same is answered by holding that once the petitioner suffered an Order at the hands of the division bench of the andhra pradesh High Court in writ appeal referred to above and as long as that Order is not set aside, the same becomes final, binding and conclusive inter-parties. Any other view would seriously affect the doctrine of finality of judgments. It is appropriate to quote the division bench judgment of this court in this context in the case of D. P. Sharma v State Transport Authority (Referred in N. Vishwanath v the State Transport Authority, Bangalore and another) regarding the application of the doctrine of finality of judgments which is as hereunder:"the mere reversal or overruling of the judgment does not have the effect of uprooting a quasi-judicial determination made in another case relying upon that decision at a time when it was a binding precedent. It is trite proposition that even inter-parties, if the law laid down in a pronouncement is later overruled, as distinguished from it being reversed, its binding effect inter-parties is not set at naught. The decision itself has to be assailed and got rid of in a manner known to or recognised by law". ( 8 ) THEREFORE, the decisions referred to by petitioner are of no assistance in a case like the one in hand. Another factor that also requires to be noticed is that the petitioner-bank has already returned the money to the said g. Sambaiah. In the light of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in the petition. ( 9 ) PETITION is dismissed. --- *** --- .