J. CHALAMESWAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by an order dated 21-1-2002 made in I. A. No. 739 of 1999 in O. S. No. 125 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil judge, Tirupathi. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the respondents in the above mentioned LA and defendants in the above mentioned suit. The I. A was filed by the 1st respondent herein under Order 34 rule 5 and Section 151 C. P. C. praying for a final decree in terms of a preliminary decree passed in the above mentioned suit. By the impugned order, the said LA was allowed. The further details may not necessary for the present purpose. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners is that the suit itself was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 9,95,337. 00 with subsequent interest. The amount of interest accrued on the amount claimed by the 1st respondent from the date of the suit when added to the suit claim would exceed the limit of rs. 10,00,000/- prescribed in the notification issued under Section 1 (4) of the Recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial institutions Act, 1993 (for short the Act ) and therefore by virtue of the operation of sections 17 and 31 of the Act, the learned senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi did not have the jurisdiction to pass a final decree in the matter and hence the impugned order is a void order. ( 4 ) UNDER Section 3 of the Act, the Debts recovery Tribunal was constituted and under Section 17 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is prescribed as under: 17. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals: (1) A Tribunal shall exercise on and from the appointed day the jurisdiction powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. (2) An appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act. (2) An appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act. " ( 5 ) THE jurisdiction conferred on the tribunal established under Section 3 of the act is subject to the pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed by a notification by the Central government in exercise of the power under section 1 (4) of the Act. Admittedly, the union of India issued a notification in exercise of the powers under Section 1 (4) of the Act whereunder the limit is prescribed to be Rs. 10,00,000. 00. Therefore, on the date when the suit was filed, it was competent for the Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi to try the suit. It is worth-while mentioning that the suit was instituted in the year 1995 i. e. , after coming into force of the Act. Admittedly, the tribunal contemplated under Section 3 of the Act was also constituted by the date of institution of the suit. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel on Section 31 appears to be wholly misconceived. The relevant portion of Section 31 (1) reads as follows: 31. Transfer of pending cases (1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any Court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon 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. ( 6 ) IT is clear from the language of Sec. 31 that only those suits which were pending before any Court immediately before the date of the establishment of the Tribunal shall stand transferred to the Tribunal. Section 31 does not make any declaration that any suit where the amount sought to be recovered by virtue of a final decree exceeds the limit of Rs. 10,00,000. 00 prescribed under section 1 of the Act should get transferred on the date on which the amount exceeds the limit of Rs. 10,00,000. 00. Section 31 does not make any declaration that any suit where the amount sought to be recovered by virtue of a final decree exceeds the limit of Rs. 10,00,000. 00 prescribed under section 1 of the Act should get transferred on the date on which the amount exceeds the limit of Rs. 10,00,000. 00. In fact, such a prescription even if it was to be made, in my view, would be an arbitrary prescription as the jurisdiction to decide these matters would vary with the chance of the length of pendency of the matter in the suit before a civil Court as obviously, longer the pendency of the suit/the more the accrual of the interest would be. In the circumstances, i do not see any illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order, which calls for the interference of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage.