Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by petitioners against order dated 22nd Jan., 2001, passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as DRAT) in M.A. No.92/06. By the said order, DRAT, while held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as DRT) is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, further held that it has the power to regulate its own proceeding and there is no procedure on framing of issues or to consider the preliminary objection as preliminary issue and dismissed the appeal. 2. The respondent, State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) is the secured creditor, whereas the petitioners, who were carrying on business under partnership in the name and style of M/s. P. Khaleelur Rahman & Co., is the borrower, who had taken credit facility, etc., and deposited equitable mortgage with the bank. As per the list of events submitted by the petitioners, credit facility was granted on 12th Dec., 1987, followed by execution of documents on 30th Dec., 1987. Equitable mortgage was confirmed on 17th Dec., 1990. Revival letters were issued on 30th Nov., 1990 and 27th Sept., 1993 and debt was called up on 2nd April, 1996. further case of petitioner is that on 9th Sept., 1996, the bank filed a suit in the Sub Court, Tirupathur, North Arcot District in Enforcement of Equitable Mortgage, for personal decree and for injunction valued at Rs.2,76,01,224.00. It was provided with O.S. SR No.6042/96. In the said suit, though it was mentioned that a court fee of Rs.20,70,488/= was paid u/s 22, 33 (1) and 27 (c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act, but actually only Rupees One Lakh was deposited as court fee by way of 20 stamp papers of Rs.5,000/= each. The plaint was returned for rectification of defects and payment of deficit court fee on 12th Sept., 1996 along with three weeks time. It was re-presented with endorsement amended and re-presented on 3rd Oct., 1996. the plaint was again returned on 7th Oct., 1996, with office note all previous returns to be complied with and one months time was granted. Before re-presentation of the suit, DRT was constituted in Tamil Nadu on 4th Nov., 1996. It was re-presented with endorsement amended and re-presented on 3rd Oct., 1996. the plaint was again returned on 7th Oct., 1996, with office note all previous returns to be complied with and one months time was granted. Before re-presentation of the suit, DRT was constituted in Tamil Nadu on 4th Nov., 1996. Suit was taken on file as it was pending as on the said date. It was re-presented in the Sub Court, Tirupathur on 6th Nov., 1996, without any endorsement and with additional court fee of Rs.20,000/= paid by way of 4 stamp papers of Rs.5,000/= each. The plaint was again returned on 8th Nov., 1996, for complying with all previous returns giving a months time. The plaint said to be re-presented with additional stamp of Rs.30,000/= by way of 6 stamp papers of Rs.5,000/= each on 29th Nov., 1996. According to the petitioner, no entry is made in the 19 Register when the papers were re-presented on 29th Nov., 1996, with additional stamp. The plaint was again returned on 15th Dec., 1997, with note the suit is returned for presentation before DRT Cell of Chennai. Time three months. According to the petitioner, no such entry was made in 19 Register. Only thereafter, fresh original application dated 9th March, 1998, was presented on 12th March, 1998, to DRT along with returned plaint – SR No.299 with an endorsement dated 11th March, 1998, Court fee already paid in the Sub Court, Tirupathur, N.A. District. The application was registered as O.A. No.1001/98 and summons were issued on 24th July, 1998 for 15th Oct., 1998. 3. At that stage, the petitioners company, M/s.P.Khaleelur Rahman & Co., moved before this Court in W.P. No.3548/02 for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the DRT, Chennai, from entertaining the said proceeding or adjudicating the said O.A. No.1001/98. The main plea taken therein was that the DRT had taken the above petition on record on the basis of wrong and factually incorrect averment and documents, which are open to question. It was pleaded that there was no suit or other proceeding pending before the Court of Subordinate Judge when the Act of Debt Recovery came into force and, therefore, there cannot be a transfer of a suit to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and, thus, the petition before the DRT was erroneous and totally misconceived. It was pleaded that there was no suit or other proceeding pending before the Court of Subordinate Judge when the Act of Debt Recovery came into force and, therefore, there cannot be a transfer of a suit to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and, thus, the petition before the DRT was erroneous and totally misconceived. Learned single Judge of this Court, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner company, M/s.P.Khaleelur Rahman & Co., by order dated 11th Feb., 2002, dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the same before the DRT, Chennai. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred I.A. No.477/02 before the DRT questioning the maintainability of the original application. It was pleaded that the stand as taken by bank that pending suit has been transferred to the Tribunal is incorrect ant not tenable therefore, it is necessary to decide the question of maintainability of the said application as a preliminary issue on the materials available on record. Being unsuccessful before the DRT, the petitioner preferred M.A. No.92/06 before the DRAT for determination of maintainability of the suit before the Tribunal as preliminary issue. After hearing the parties, by impugned order dated 22nd Jan., 2007, the DRAT, while observed that there is no procedure of framing issues, held that the refusal of the Tribunal to consider the objections as preliminary issues does not call for interference. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners referred to the list of events as noticed above, averments as were made in the plaint filed before the Sub Court, Tirupathur, interlocutory application as was preferred before the DRT as also 19 Register. It was submitted that there being no suit or other proceeding pending before the Sub Court in the eye of law, transfer of such case u/s 31 of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as RDDB & FI Act) was impermissible and, therefore, the original application on transfer was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the plaint wherein plaintiff had valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.2,76,01,224/= and had stated that it was paying a court fee of Rs.20,70,488/= u/s 22, 33 (1) and 27 (c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1965. Reliance was placed on the plaint wherein plaintiff had valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.2,76,01,224/= and had stated that it was paying a court fee of Rs.20,70,488/= u/s 22, 33 (1) and 27 (c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1965. It was submitted that as against averment in para-28 of the plaint, the 1st respondent bank had not paid court fee of Rs.20,70,488/= and, in fact, paid only a court fee of Rs.1 Lakh, which clearly showed that the 1st respondent Bank had deliberately made a false averment in the plaint. It was submitted that the plaint was returned on 12th Sept., 1996, by the Sub Court, Tirupathur, to the Bank with specific endorsement that the deficit court fee under the plaint has to be made good. But from the record, copy of which has been enclosed with typed set, it would be evident that the plaint was re-presented with endorsement amended and re-presented. Reliance was placed on 19 Register to show that even subsequently no entry made in such register to suggest that additional stamp of Rs.30,000/= in 6 stamp papers were deposited on 29th Nov., 1996. In 19 Register, for the date 9th Sept., 1996, against S. No.6042, it was shown that a sum of Rs.1 Lakh had been deposited as court fee, but no such entry has been shown either on 6th Nov., 1996 or 29th Nov., 1996 in the said 19 Register showing a deposition of Rs.20,000/= or Rs.30,000/= respectively against S. No.6042. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank referred to the document attached to the typed set and submitted that for the reason known to the sub-court, initially one No.6042 was given and against such number it was shown that a sum of Rs.1 Lakh was deposited on 9th Sept., 1996. But, subsequently, when additional stamp papers were deposited on 6th Nov., 1996 and 29th Nov., 1996, a separate entry No.76191 shown on the records of the plaint, which has been reflected in 19 Register on 6th Nov., 1996 and 29th Nov., 1996 along with earlier No.6042. But, subsequently, when additional stamp papers were deposited on 6th Nov., 1996 and 29th Nov., 1996, a separate entry No.76191 shown on the records of the plaint, which has been reflected in 19 Register on 6th Nov., 1996 and 29th Nov., 1996 along with earlier No.6042. Further, according to the counsel for the bank, the additional court fee having deposited on 6th Nov., 1996 and 29th Nov., 1996, if any error committed by the office of the Sub Court, Tirupathur, the plaintiff cannot be penalised for the same. Reliance was also placed on stamp papers, enclosed with the typed set, which bears the stamp of the court of Sub Judge, Tirupathur, for total Rupees One Lakh paid in 20 stamp papers of Rs.5,000/= each on 9th Sept., 2006; additional stamp papers of Rs.20,000/= in 4 stamp papers of Rs.5,000/= each and further additional stamp papers of Rs.30,000/= in 6 stamp papers of Rs.5,000/= each, which were purchased prior to 6th Nov., 1996 and 29th Nov., 1996 (the dates on which they were stated to have been filed) and which also bears the seal of the Sub Court, Tirupathur and the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in fact, assailed the maintainability of the original application on the following facts and grounds :- a) No proper court fee was paid before the Tribunal; b) There was no valid transfer of suit u/s 31 of RDDB & FI Act; and c) There was no valid institution of original application. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank, apart from showing the aforesaid fact, submitted that the borrowers, somehow or other, have been withholding the proceeding for more than 11 years and, therefore, this Court should not allow the borrower to take advantage of Article 227 to stall a proceeding. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the pleading as was made in the plaint, original application filed before the DRT, impugned orders passed in I.A. No.477/02 and M.A. No.92/06 as also the documents filed along with the typed sets. 8. According to us, in the present case it is not necessary to decide whether the additional stamp paper of Rs.20,000/= was filed in court of Sub Judge, Tirupathur on 6th Nov., 1996 and further additional stamp paper of Rs.30,000/= was actually deposited on 29th Nov., 1996. 8. According to us, in the present case it is not necessary to decide whether the additional stamp paper of Rs.20,000/= was filed in court of Sub Judge, Tirupathur on 6th Nov., 1996 and further additional stamp paper of Rs.30,000/= was actually deposited on 29th Nov., 1996. Admittedly, RDDB & FI Act came into force with effect from 25th June, 1993. The DRT at Chennai was constituted on 4th Nov., 1996. In absence of such Tribunal, the suit was maintainable before the Civil Court, including Sub Court, Tirupathur, N.A. District. On 9th Sept., 1996, though it is stated that the suit was filed in the Sub Court, Tirupathur, but, in fact, the plaint was only filed on the said date, it was not registered as a suit for non-payment of the requisite court fee, therefore, it cannot be presumed that a suit was pending on 9th Sept., 1996, or thereafter. This will also be evident from the fact that the plaint was returned for rectification of defect on 12th Sept., 1996 and on representation, again the plaint was returned on 6th Nov., 1996 and third time when represented it was returned on 8th Nov., 1996. By that time, i.e., 4th Nov., 1996, the DRT, Chennai, having come into existence, u/s 18, no Court or other authority, including the Sub Court, Tirupathur, had any jurisdiction, power or authority in relation to matters specified u/s 17 of RDDB & FI Act and, thereby, from 4th Nov., 1996, the Sub Court, Tirupathur, could not have entertained the plaint. The plaint being not maintainable in the Court of Sub Judge, Tirupathur, in view of bar imposed u/s 18 of RDDB & FI Act, if it was returned on 15th Dec., 1997, for presentation before the DRT, Chennai, it cannot be presumed that a suit was instituted before Sub Court, Tirupathur and thus there was no occasion for transfer of any pending case u/s 31 of RDDB & FI Act. 9. There is nothing on record to suggest that Sub Court, Tirupathur, entertained the suit, transferred such pending suit u/s 31 of RDDB & FI Act. Therefore, the stand taken by the bank before the Tribunal or before this Court that the suit was transferred u/s 31 cannot be accepted. 9. There is nothing on record to suggest that Sub Court, Tirupathur, entertained the suit, transferred such pending suit u/s 31 of RDDB & FI Act. Therefore, the stand taken by the bank before the Tribunal or before this Court that the suit was transferred u/s 31 cannot be accepted. It has been accepted by the petitioner that a fresh original application was presented on 12th Sept., 1998 before the DRT, Chennai with SR No.299, as evident from the list of dates and events filed by the petitioner. Thus, for all purposes, O.A. No.1001/98, preferred before the Tribunal was a fresh application filed u/s 19 and the matter has to be looked into from such angle. 10. The question of maintainability is dependent on various factors, including limitation. If 12th Sept., 1998 is the date of fresh filing of the original application, whether it is barred by limitation or whether the bank could take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is an issue, which cannot be determined in this case, having not raised nor determined either by the DRT, Chennai or DRAT, Chennai. The Appellate Tribunal rightly held that the Tribunal was not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure and it has own power to decide any question of law, if raised. Framing of issue may not be required to be framed as per Code of Civil Procedure, but once a question of law is raised, according to us, the DRT is expected to decide such question/issue. If it is not decided at the initial stage as a preliminary issue, it can be determined at the time of final hearing of the application. 11. In these circumstances, while we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 22nd Jan., 2001, passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in M.A. No.92/06, allow the parties to contest the original application, which is to be determined by DRT, Chennai, in accordance with law. There being no merit, the revision application is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.