JUDGMENT J.M. MALIK, CHAIRPER'SON.-This order shall decide the above said two cases, which entail the same question of law and were consolidated vide my order dated 29th August, 2008. In both the cases Punjab National Bank and Allahabad Bank, the respondents/ decree-holders entered into two different agreements of assignment and assigned their rights of recovery of debt amount from Shree Laxmi Niwas Paper mills Ltd., in both the cases, which is the judgment-debtor in both the cases, in favour of Astra Exports and Holdings (P) Ltd., Kolkata, appellant in both the cases. The appellant moved an application for substitution as decree-holders being assignees in, place of the above said two different assignors. The recovery officer vide its order dated 12th April, 2006 and the learned D.R.T. vide its order dated 30th April, 2007 found no favour with the above said applications and dismissed the same. The appellant has challenged those orders in these appeals. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that his prayer made in the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant-assignee/appellant Astra Exports and Holdings (P) Ltd., 8 Lyons Range, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700001, W.B. is legal and should be considered by this Court. The said prayer in written submissions dated 2nd December, 2005 is reproduced as follows: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to permit the applicant i.e., assignee/transferee of the decree by the bank to proceed with the execution of decree in the aforesaid. D.R.C. case in its favour with due impleadment in place of the assignor /transferor bank as per law and/or in the alternative this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to remit/send back the entire records of execution in the aforesaid D.R.C. case along with the connected records to the original jurisdiction of Civil Court, Mainpuri for the adjudication of the rights of the applicant/ assignee as per law so that justice may be done, otherwise the applicant/assignee/transferee shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." . (Emphasis supplied) 3. Instead of touching the heart of the problem the learned Counsel for the appellants just skirted it. The appellant is neither a bank nor a financial institution. The Act itself suggests that. when the matter is pending. between private parties, which are neither bank nor financial institutions, the instant Act namely R.D.D.B.F.I. Act, 1993 shall have no application. Instead of touching the heart of the problem the learned Counsel for the appellants just skirted it. The appellant is neither a bank nor a financial institution. The Act itself suggests that. when the matter is pending. between private parties, which are neither bank nor financial institutions, the instant Act namely R.D.D.B.F.I. Act, 1993 shall have no application. The above said Act seeks to provide for the establishment of Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. Sub-section (1), Clause (4) provides that: "(4) The provisions of this Act shall not apply where the amount of debt due to any bank or financial institution or to a consortium of banks or financial institutions is less than Rs. 10,00,000 or such other amount, being not less than one lakh rupees, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify." 4. It, therefore, clearly, specifically and unequivocally excludes other parties including the appellant. 5. Again sub-section (2) (e) defines the banking company as follows: "The banking company was having the meaning assigned to it in Clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949)". Clause (c) of section of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is reproduced below: "(c) 'banking company' means any company which transacts the business of banking in India. Explanation.-Any company which is engaged in the manufacture of goods or carries on any trade and which accepts deposits of money from the public merely for the purpose of financing its business as such manufacturer or trader shall not be deemed to transact the business of banking with the meaning of this clause." 6. Again section 2, Clause (g) defines the debt in the following terms: "(g) 'debt' means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any Civil Court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application." 7. Again section 17 (1) provides"17. Again section 17 (1) provides"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. " 8. Again section 19 of the R.D.D.B.F.I. Act, 1993 also excludes the jurisdiction of third party. 9. It is, therefore, amply clear that the case of assignee/appellant, which is neither a bank or a financial institution or a consortium of bank or the financial institutions, is not covered by this Act and cannot claim any relief under this Act. 10. In an authority a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Kotak Mahindra Banking Ltd. v. Industrial Development Bank of India, 1 II (2007) BC 302 was pleased to hold, "4. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that assigning of the debt is legal, valid and in accordance with section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act and the R.B.I. Guidelines do permit assignment and transfer of non-performing assets to another banking institution by financial institution amongst others. He relies in this context on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd. v. I.F.C.I. Ltd. 2 AIR 2007 Delhi 65 In these circumstances, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no occasion for the D.R.A.T. to nurture any doubts with regard to the permissibility of such assignments and in any case even if this issue was sought to be examined by it, there was no occasion to stay the proceedings, which had been going on for the last over 8 years. " 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not show to the Court any law, rule, regulation and provision, which may authorize the D.R.T. to remand/ send back all the records of execution to the original jurisdiction of Civil Court, Mainpuri for the adjudication of the rights of the applicant/assignee in, accordance with law. This is not desirable that Recovery Officer, D.R.T. or D.R.A.T. should poach into or trespass into the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The appellant has chosen to enter into above said assignment agreements of its own volition after analyzing its pros and cons and at its own peril. 12. This is not desirable that Recovery Officer, D.R.T. or D.R.A.T. should poach into or trespass into the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The appellant has chosen to enter into above said assignment agreements of its own volition after analyzing its pros and cons and at its own peril. 12. The Counsel for the respondents argued in one voice that there lies no rub in approaching the Civil Court. This is, however, an indisputable fact that originally both the suits were filed in Civil Courts, Mainpuri and the suits were decreed by the Civil Court on 26th April, 1997 and 9th April, 1990 respectively. The execution petition in both the' cases were filed before the D.R.T. During the pendency of those cases assignment, agreements were made. Both the authorities below have held that the Civil Court is still competent to adjudicate and execute the rights of the appellant/ assignee of the decree by virtue of Order XXI, Rule 16 of the C.P.C. To my mind there lies no legal impediment in approaching the Civil Court for execution of the decrees. 13. Consequently, the appeals have no force. Both the appeals are not maintainable and are dismissed at this initial stage. Appellant is given liberty to approach the Civil Court, which may decide the matter as per law and would be at liberty to summon the record of the cases, if any, as per law. Copies of the judgments be given to both the parties as per law and another set of copies be sent to the learned D.R.T. forthwith. Appeals Dismissed.