ORDER : S.N. Variava, J. - We have heard Mr C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, at great length. 2. This petition is against an order dated 20-8-2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay dismissing the petitioners writ petition challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 3. The respondents filed a claim against the petitioners before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioners had filed an application for dismissal and/or stay of the proceedings on two grounds viz.: (a) the petitioners were merely a surety and the principal debtor was before BIFR. It was claimed that by virtue of Section 22 of the SICA, even the claim against the surety could not be proceeded with, and (b) the claim should be dismissed as Respondent 1 had asked for the plural remedies in one proceeding. This was based under Rule 10 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Rules. These contentions have been rejected by the authorities below and the High Court. 4. The petitioners are the drawer of the bills of exchange. Under Section 30 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a drawer of a bill of exchange is primarily liable in case of dishonour. Therefore, once dishonour takes place the liability of a drawer is not that of a surety. Thus, the claim against the petitioners was as principal debtors and not as sureties. Even otherwise the claim was for amounts due under a bill-discounting facility granted to the petitioners. The petitioners having utilised the bill-discounting facility were the principal debtors. Their application for stay, merely on the ground that the acceptor of the bills of exchange was before BIFR, was rightly rejected. 5. As stated above, it is also urged that the proceedings should be dismissed in view of Rule 10 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 which reads as follows: "10. Plural remedies. An application shall not seek relief or reliefs based on more than a single cause of action in one single application unless the reliefs prayed for are consequential to one another." 6. Pending the proceedings, Rule 10 has been deleted. Once Rule 10 has been deleted, a pending proceeding cannot be dismissed on the footing that Rule 10 continues to apply. Therefore, after deletion of Rule 10 a pending proceeding cannot be dismissed on the ground that plural reliefs were claimed in one proceeding. 7. Pending the proceedings, Rule 10 has been deleted. Once Rule 10 has been deleted, a pending proceeding cannot be dismissed on the footing that Rule 10 continues to apply. Therefore, after deletion of Rule 10 a pending proceeding cannot be dismissed on the ground that plural reliefs were claimed in one proceeding. 7. Even otherwise, we see no substance in the contention. The claims are based on a bill-discounting facility granted to the petitioners. When a bank/financial institution grants a facility then even though under that facility numerous transactions have taken place, the claim is based only on the facility granted. It is a claim based on a single cause of action. Mere fact that under that facility numerous transactions have taken place does not mean that each transaction is a separate cause of action. 8. Reliance is placed on Kejal Enterprises v. Union of India, CA No. 3982 of 2002. In our view this case is of no assistance at all. In that case the claim was against an acceptor who was not the constituent of the bank. As the acceptor was not the constituent of the bank, the claim necessarily was on individual bills of exchange which had been dishonoured by the acceptor. A claim based on individual bills of exchange is completely different from a claim against a constituent on the basis of facility granted to that constituent. Further, even in Kejal Enterprises case1 it has not been held that Rule 10 applies. This Court has merely granted leave in order to consider whether on those facts it can be said that these causes of action are different. 9. Under these circumstances, we see no substance in this special leave petition. 10. The special leave petition stands dismissed accordingly. SLP dismissed.