A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the action of the Principal District Judge, Guntur in entertaining the suit - OS No. 89 of 2002 filed by the 1st respondent-Bank against the petitioners and others for declaration of Award dated 23-5-1998 passed by the Banking Ombudsman in complaint No. 233/97-98 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 131 of Negotiable Instruments Act and for setting aside the same, and for a consequential direction to the defendants 1,2 and 6 to pay a sum of Rs. 24,37,154/- to the plaintiff with interest. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as under: 2003 (5) ALD Sept. 1th ( 3 ) THE 1st petitioner was awarded sub-contract by M/s. Hyderabad Agricultural Co-operative Association, Hyderabad (HACA) for supply of building material for Social Welfare Hostels. The HACA issued a demand draft bearing No. 707841, dated 17-12-1996 for a sum of Rs. 13,07,135/-drawn on State Bank of India, in favour of 1st petitioner for due execution of contract Guntur. When the said Bank Draft along with some other blank cheques were missing, the 1st petitioner made a complaint to the police and also intimated the loss of draft and cheques to the State Bank of India, Guntur Branch. A Current account was opened in the name of the 1st petitioner represented by 2nd petitioner in the 1st respondent-Bank and deposited the demand draft dated 17-12-1996 to the credit of the said Account and encashed the same. The 1st petitioner on coming to know of the opening of the current account by fictitious persons and withdrawing the demand draft lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur. On such complaint the police registered a Crime No. 43/97 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and ordered for investigation. The 1st petitioner also filed a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad in Complaint No. 233/97-98, which was contested by the 1st respondent-Bank. The Banking Ombudsman after making an enquiry into the complaint passed an Award on 23-3-1998 directing the 1st respondent-Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 13,07,135/- and interest thereon from 18-12-1996 till date of payment at the rate applicable to fixed deposits for the said period. The Banking Ombudsman after making an enquiry into the complaint passed an Award on 23-3-1998 directing the 1st respondent-Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 13,07,135/- and interest thereon from 18-12-1996 till date of payment at the rate applicable to fixed deposits for the said period. The 1st petitioner was directed to furnish one surety whose worth is twice the amount of the draft and also to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards expenses. Feeling aggrieved by the direction issued by the Banking Ombudsman, asking the 1st petitioner to furnish third party security, it filed WP No. 31052 of 1998. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to comply with the Award of Banking Ombudsman within a period of four weeks, pending the directions that may be issued by the Reserve Bank of India in pursuance of representation made by the 1st respondent-bank on 8-6-1998. The appeal filed by the 1st respondent-Bank was dismissed holding that the interest of the bank is sufficiently safeguarded. On dismissal of the writ appeal the 1st respondent-Bank instituted the above suit. The Court below returned the same with some office objections. On complying the said objections, ultimately the suit was taken on file. Hence, the petitioners moved this Court by way of present revision contending that such a suit filed by the 1st respondent bank is not maintainable and having regard to the plaint averments the suit is not cognizable under Section 9 CPC. There is no cause of action for institution of the suit. The suit filed by the 1st respondent-Bank is hopelessly barred by limitation. In view of the fact that there being no cause of action for institution of suit and the same is barred by limitation, the learned District Judge should have rejected the suit upholding objections instead of ordering its registration and taking it on file. The basis of the letter dated 8-6-1998 said to have been written by the 1st respondent-bank to the Reserve Bank of India will not extend the period of limitation and the suit filed by the 1st respondent-Bank basing upon the permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India on 15-6-2002 cannot be entertained, as the permission did not refer the letter dated 8-6-1998. More so, in view of the orders passed by the High Court in WP No. 31052 of 1998 and WA No. 1278 of 2000 the suit as such filed by the 1st respondent is not maintainable, as the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. Mere filing of application-I. A. No. 2469 of 2002 by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, as the learned District Judge has no jurisdiction to take the suit on file, will not be a bar for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) OPPOSING the revision the 1st respondent-Bank filed a counter stating that when once the petitioners filed IA under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the revision has to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Reserve Bank of India through its Circular No. BOS. BC. 90/13. 1. 2001/97-98 dated 21-0-1998 issued instructions in exercise of powers conferred under Section 35-A read with 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short the Act 10/ 1949 ) As per the said instructions, it is mandatory on the part of the Bank to obtain prior permission to contest the Award of the Banking Ombudsman. As any circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India will have a statutory force, the 1st respondent-Bank immediately after passing the Award by the Banking Ombudsman made an application seeking permission of the Reserve Bank of India to question the Award in a Civil Court as per the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995 on 8-6-1998, which fact was admitted by the Reserve Bank of India in its counter filed in WP No. 31052 of 1998 stating that the application filed by the 1st respondent-Bank is pending consideration. In view of the same, the suit filed by the 1st respondent-Bank was rightly registered as the same was filed within time from the date of granting permission by the Reserve Bank of India, namely 15-6-2002. There is no illegality or irregularity committed by the Court in entertaining the suit, which warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no illegality or irregularity committed by the Court in entertaining the suit, which warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners, Sri P. V. Vidyasagar, would contend that the Banking Ombudsman passed the Award on 23-5-1998 and the 1st respondent-Bank sought permission on 23-3-2002, which is evident from the permission accorded by the Reserve Bank of India through its letter dated 15-6-2002. Right to sue will accrue to the Bank on the date of award. In view of Article 58 of the Limitation Act the Bank is precluded to question the award passed by the Banking Ombudsman after expiry of three years. The cause of action arose for filing. the suit is only on 23-5-1998 i. e. , the date on which the Banking Ombudsman passed the award but not on the date when application seeking permission for challenging the award made by the 1st respondent-Bank i. e. , 23-2-2002. In view of the same, the suit filed by the Bank should have been rejected by the Court below, as barred by limitation. Learned Counsel alternatively contends that even otherwise when once the petitioners accepted the award passed by the Banking Ombudsman through its letter dated 27-5-1998, right to question the award begins from the said date, whereas the suit was filed on 8-7-2002, which is barred by limitation and it cannot be entertained by the Court below. ( 6 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Bank while strongly opposing the contentions of the petitioners would submit that in view of Section 35-A of the Act 10/1949 any instructions/guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India are statutory in nature. The award, if any, passed by the Banking Ombudsman is not binding on the bank against which it is passed unless the complainants submits a letter of acceptance of the award in full and final settlement of his claim in the matter within a period of one month as contemplated under sub-clause (6) of Clause 20 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995 issued under Section 35-A of the Act 10/1949. Whereas the 1st petitioner challenged the award in WP No. 31052 of 1998 and on disposal of the writ petition the 1st respondent-Bank filed the suit, which is within the period of limitation. Whereas the 1st petitioner challenged the award in WP No. 31052 of 1998 and on disposal of the writ petition the 1st respondent-Bank filed the suit, which is within the period of limitation. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that immediately on passing the award the 1st respondent-bank addressed a letter to the Reserve Bank of India seeking permission to challenge the award as per the Scheme through its letter dated 8-6-1998, which fact was also stated in para-11 of the plaint and the said letter was also annexed as list of documents to the plaint. In view of the same, the time spent in obtaining permission from the Reserve Bank of India has to be excluded for filing the suit under Section 15 (2) of the Act 10/1949. Lastly, he would contend that the petitioners, who are already moved the Civil Court to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, cannot invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for rejection of the plaint. As cause of action and limitation are mixed questions of law and fact, it is for the Civil Court to decide the said issue basing on the averments in the plaint and evidence adduced by the parties in that regard. ( 7 ) IN view of rival contentions, the only point that emerges for consideration is whether the lower Court has committed any illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction for registering the suit without rejecting the same as barred by limitation. ( 8 ) THE facts as stated above clearly establish that on Banking Ombudsman passing the Award, directing the 1st respondent-Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 13,07,135/- covered by demand draft issued by HACA in favour of the 1st petitioner on its furnishing one surety whose worth is twice the amount of the draft, the 1st petitioner herein challenged the said direction in WP No. 31052 of 1998 in which Reserve Bank of India filed its counter. This Court refused to go into the aspect of opening of current account, as the Award of Banking Ombudsman was not challenged in that writ petition and the only direction sought for was for payment of money without insisting on furnishing surety, as directed by the Banking Ombudsman. This Court refused to go into the aspect of opening of current account, as the Award of Banking Ombudsman was not challenged in that writ petition and the only direction sought for was for payment of money without insisting on furnishing surety, as directed by the Banking Ombudsman. As the award was not challenged, this Court observed that it is not necessary to go into the legality or otherwise of the award passed by the Banking Ombudsman. This Court also recorded a finding that permission sought by the 1st respondent-Bank herein is pending with the Reserve Bank of India and the Scheme itself was framed in pursuance of Section 35-A of the Act 10/1949 and the same has statutory force. Holding so, this Court directed the 1st respondent-Bank to pay the amount covered by demand draft to the 1st petitioner. Appeal preferred by the 1st respondent-Bank was also dismissed observing that the Scheme does not provide any mechanism or forum to execute the Award passed by the Banking Ombudsman in the event of non-compliance of the award by the concerned bank. Once the party accepts the award by filing a letter of acceptance in full and final settlement of the claim it becomes executable. In the absence of any forum or mechanism under the Scheme, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief in case of non-compliance of the award. ( 9 ) THE Apex Court in Corporation Bank v. D. S. Gowda, (1994) 5 SCC 213 held that any circular/instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India will have statutory force. ( 10 ) AS per the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995, implementation of the Award was notified in exercise of powers conferred under Section 35-A of the Act 10/1949 through Circular Memo dated 21-2-1998 issued by the Reserve Bank of India was noticed by the Division Bench in WA No. 1278 of 2000. In view of the above circular it is incumbent upon the bank to obtain the permission of Reserve Bank of India in the event it decides to challenge the Award. Accordingly, the bank through its letter dated 8-6-1998 sought permission from the Reserve Bank. In view of the above circular it is incumbent upon the bank to obtain the permission of Reserve Bank of India in the event it decides to challenge the Award. Accordingly, the bank through its letter dated 8-6-1998 sought permission from the Reserve Bank. The bank further wrote a letter dated 23-3-2002, on which the Division Bench observed that the representation of the 1st respondent-Bank dated 8-6-1998 is extra-legal in nature and non-statutory. When the said plea was addressed to the learned Single Judge, who after noticing the fact that the 1st petitioner furnished bank guarantee, did not think it appropriate to refuse the relief on that count. Whether the Scheme framed by the Reserve Bank to resolve the dispute through Banking Ombudsman will have any statutory force and the period spent for obtaining permission from the Reserve Bank of India to challenge the Award saves limitation under Section 15 (2) of Act 10/1949 has to be decided by the Court below in IA No. 2469 of 2002 filed by the petitioners for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In the plaint when it is categorically asserted by the 1st respondent-bank that the cause of action arose on 8-6-1998 when it sought permission to challenge the award and the effect of Section 15 (2) of the Act 10/1949 has to be considered by the Court basing upon the evidence let in and issues framed in the main suit. When the bank pleaded that the award will be executable only on the acceptance by the petitioners under sub-clause (6) of clause 20 of the Scheme, the same has to be considered in the suit. In view of the remedy available to the petitioners to take all such pleas before the Civil Court, it is not desirable for this Cour to non-suit the respondent-Bank at the threshold stating that the suit is barred b) limitation and there is no cause of action ir view of law declared by the Apex Court ir A. V. Enkatasubbaiah Naidu v. Chellappan (2000) 7 SCC 695 . ( 11 ) IN view of the fact that the petitioners have already moved the Civil court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint in IA No. 2469 of 2002, any finding given by this Court will not only affect the suit but also the result of IA. ( 11 ) IN view of the fact that the petitioners have already moved the Civil court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint in IA No. 2469 of 2002, any finding given by this Court will not only affect the suit but also the result of IA. In view of the same, I am not inclined to go into the above aspect at this stage and the parties are at liberty to agitate the same before the Court below and it is for it to consider the same basing upon the evidence. ( 12 ) THE Petition dismissed.