ORDER Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal under Order 41, Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order dated 11-8-2008 passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 2/2006 deciding the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court against the Appellant/Plaintiff. 2. In brief, the Appellants had filed the Civil Suit No. 2-B/2006 pleading that they had taken cash credit limit from the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and had executed certain documents in their favour. The recovery proceedings were initiated by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and RRC was issued in collusion with Respondent Nos. 5 and 8. The Appellants alleged certain action, inaction and illegal action on the part of the Respondents in the course of the recovery proceedings which had resulted into the loss to the Appellants, therefore, they claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 3,27,16,600/- along with the interest. The suit was opposed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by filing the written statement and objecting to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of the provisions contained in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "the DRT Act") and also disputing the claim of the Appellants on merit. The trial Court had framed the issue No. 6 relating to the jurisdiction' of the Civil Court and by the impugned order dated 11-8-2008 trial Court has decided the said issue against the Appellants holding that the suit filed by the Appellants is not maintainable in the Civil Court and returned it for filing before the DRT. 3. Learned Counsel for Appellants submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in deciding the issue of jurisdiction against the Appellants without appreciating that none of the provisions of the DRT Act exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of a suit for damages at the instance of a private party. He further submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the provisions of the DRT Act and has committed an error in holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. 4. Learned Counsel for Respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the trial Court in holding that the Civil Suit at the instance of the Appellants was not maintainable. 4. Learned Counsel for Respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the trial Court in holding that the Civil Suit at the instance of the Appellants was not maintainable. He submitted that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of the clear provisions contained in the DRT Act. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Chapter III of the DRT Act deals with the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal. Under Section 17 of the Act the Tribunal can entertain and decide application filed by the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. Under Section 17-A the Appellate Tribunal exercises general power of superintendence and control over the Tribunal. Section 18 of the Act relates to the bar of jurisdiction and excludes the jurisdiction of other Courts and authorities, except Supreme Court and High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in relation to matters specified in Section 17. Sections 17 and 18 are reproduced below for ready reference: 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, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act. 18. Bar of Jurisdiction. - On and from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in Section 17. 7. Chapter IV of the DRT Act deals with procedure of Tribunals and Sub-section (8) of Section 19 falling in Chapter IV permits a Defendant before the Tribunal to file counter-claim against the claim of the applicant before the Tribunal whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not. 8. Under the scheme of the Act jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 18 is barred only in relation to matters specified in Section 17. 8. Under the scheme of the Act jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 18 is barred only in relation to matters specified in Section 17. Section 17 deals with the applications to be filed by the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts before the Tribunal. Section 17 does not provide for filing of any application or counter-claim by a private party or debtor before the Tribunal. Thus, under Section 18 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit at the instance of the private party or debtor is not excluded. 9. The aforesaid issue has been dealt with in detail by the Supreme Court in the matter of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation reported in (2009) 8 SCC 646 , wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows: 106. It is furthermore difficult to accept the contentions of the Respondents that the statutory provisions contained in Sections 17 and 18 of the DRT Act have ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as the said provisions clearly state that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in relation only to applications from banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. 107. A Civil Court is entitled to decide the respective claims of the parties in a suit. It must come within the purview of the hierarchy of Courts as indicated in Section 3 of the Code. It will have jurisdiction to determine all disputes of civil nature unless the same is barred expressly by a statute or by necessary implication. 108. Although some arguments have been advanced before us whether having regard to the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act the Civil Court jurisdiction is completely ousted, we are of the view that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be ousted only in respect of the matters contained in Section 18 which has a direct co-relation with Section 17 thereof, that is to say that the matter must relate to a debt payable to a bank or a financial institution. The application before the Tribunal would like only at the instance of the bank or the financial institution for the recovery of its debt. The application before the Tribunal would like only at the instance of the bank or the financial institution for the recovery of its debt. It must further be noted in this respect that had the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts been barred in respect of counter-claim also, the statute would have said so and Sections 17 and 18 would have been amended to introduce the provision of counterclaim. 110. It must be remembered that the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is plenary in nature. Unless the same is ousted, expressly or by necessary implication, it will have jurisdiction to try all type of suits. 117. The Act, although, was enacted for a specified purpose but having regard to the exclusion of jurisdiction expressly provided for in Sections 17 and 18 of the Act, it is difficult to hold that a Civil Court's jurisdiction is completely ousted. Indisputably the banks and the financial institutions for the purpose of enforcement of their claim for a sum below Rs. 10 lakhs would have to file civil suits before the Civil Courts. It is only for the claims of the banks and the financial institutions above the aforementioned sum that they have to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is also without any cavil that the banks and the financial institutions, keeping in view the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act, are necessarily required to file their claim petitions before the Tribunal. The converse is not true. Debtors can file their claims to set-off or counter-claims only when a claim application is filed and not otherwise. Even in a given situation the banks and/or the financial institutions can ask the Tribunal to pass an appropriate order forgetting the claims of set-off or the counter-claims, determined by Civil Court. The Tribunal is not a high-powered Tribunal. It is a one-man Tribunal. Unlike some special Acts, as for example the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, it does not contain a deeming provision that the Tribunal would be deemed to be a Civil Court. 118. The liabilities and rights of the parties have not been created under the Act. Only a new forum has been created. The banks and the financial institutions cannot approach the Tribunal unless the debt has become due. In such a contingency, indisputably a civil suit would lie. 118. The liabilities and rights of the parties have not been created under the Act. Only a new forum has been created. The banks and the financial institutions cannot approach the Tribunal unless the debt has become due. In such a contingency, indisputably a civil suit would lie. There is a possibility that the debtor may file pre-emptive suits and obtain orders of injunction, but the same alone, in our opinion, by itself cannot be held to be a ground to completely oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the teeth of Section 9 of the Code. Recourse to the other provisions of the Code will have to be resorted to for redressal of his individual grievances. 119. It is also difficult to accept the contention of learned Counsel for the banks that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not in consonance with the Act. We do not find the same to be correct. On the ground of inconsistency in the procedures contained in the two Acts alone, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be said to have been ousted. 124. We may notice that some of the parliamentary statutes, like the Family Courts Act confers all the powers on Family Courts which are essential for discharging the functions of Civil Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure. We accept that disposal of a civil suit takes a long time. But indisputably remedy of summary and speedy trial by itself would not be sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Had the intention of Parliament been so, it could have expressly said so. Casus omissus, as it well known, cannot be supplied. 125. Another aspect of the matter also cannot be lost sight of. A Plaintiff of a suit will have a vested right of appeal. The said right would be determined keeping in view the date of filing of the suit. Such a right of appeal must expressly be taken away. An appeal is the "right of entering a Superior Court, and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the Court below" and "though procedure does surround an appeal the central idea is a right". 136. The Plaintiff furthermore is the dominus litus. Such a right of appeal must expressly be taken away. An appeal is the "right of entering a Superior Court, and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the Court below" and "though procedure does surround an appeal the central idea is a right". 136. The Plaintiff furthermore is the dominus litus. He may institute a suit having regard to the provisions contained in Sections 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure in any Civil Court within whose jurisdiction inter alia a cause of action arises. If the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred or if he having regard to common law principle is entitled to maintain an action in two different forums, he may choose one of them. [See: Rajasthan SRTC v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2009) 4 SCC 299 ]. 10. In the matter of Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 72 , also the Supreme Court has held that under Sections 17 and 18 of the DRT Act Civil Courts jurisdiction is barred only in respect to the application by a Bank or a financial institution for recovery of different debts. The jurisdiction of a Civil Court is not barred in regard to any suit filed by borrower or any other person against Bank for any relief and the said view has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. (supra). 11. Thus, it has been settled by the Supreme Court that under Section 17, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in relation only to applications from banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. The Civil Court has jurisdiction to determine all disputes of civil nature unless the same are barred expressly by a statute or by necessary implication. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted only in respect of the matters contained in Section 18 which have direct co-relation with Section 17. The Supreme Court [has specifically observed that had the jurisdiction of the Civil Court been barred in respect of the counter-claim also, the statute would have said so and Sections 17 and 18 would have been suitably amended to include therein the provision relating to counter-claim also. 12. The Supreme Court [has specifically observed that had the jurisdiction of the Civil Court been barred in respect of the counter-claim also, the statute would have said so and Sections 17 and 18 would have been suitably amended to include therein the provision relating to counter-claim also. 12. In view of the aforesaid position of law, it is apparent that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred in respect of the suit for damages filed by the Appellants. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the provisions contained in Sections 17 and 18 of the Act and has committed an error in holding that the Civil Suit filed by the Appellants is not maintainable. 13. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India v. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2007 (2) MPLJ (SC) 18 : (2007) 1 SCC 97 . The said judgment is not on the issue of ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act but the said judgment mainly deals with the issue of joint trial by DRT in respect of all the Bank's claim under Section 19 of the Act and borrowers claim pending in the Civil Court. Present is not a case where bank has moved application for transfer of suit to DRT for joint trial but in the present case trial Court has decided the issue of jurisdiction by holding that jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted since the claim of the Appellant is in the nature of counterclaim. Even assuming that the claim set up by the present Appellant is in the nature of a counter-claim then also since the jurisdiction, of the Civil Court in respect of such a claim is not ousted, therefore, it cannot be held that such a claim is not maintainable before the Civil Court. The situation may be different if the bank moves before the Civil Court for transfer of suit for joint trial, and in such a case the different criteria would be applicable and it would be open to the Civil Court to examine the issue of necessity of joint trial in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India (supra). The Civil Court has committed an error in deciding the issue of jurisdiction placing reliance upon the said judgment. 14. Thus, in my considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the Civil Court deciding the preliminary issue against the Appellants cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside by holding that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to decide the claim set up by the Appellants in the suit. 15. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.