JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—This is a petition for quashing of the notice Annexure-2 to the writ petition issued by the District Legal Services Authority to the petitioners stating that the Central Bank of India has initiated a drive to settle all outstanding Bank dues on lump sum basis by negotiations before moving to the Court for its recovery and therefore you are called upon to enter appearance for settlement of the dues of Rs. 6,02,993/-. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the aforesaid notice is without jurisdiction, as the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred by Section 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’). 3. Section 34 of the above Act provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which can be determined by a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal. It clearly means that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands excluded in respect of matters which are cognizable by Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal. 4. Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 authorizes the Debts Recovery Tribunal to decide applications of the Bank and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. However, Section 1 Sub-section 4 of the said Act clearly lays down that the aforesaid Act would not be applicable where amount of debts due to any bank or financial institutions is less than Rs. 10,000,00/-. Thus, the recovery of any amount by the bank or financial institution of a sum of Rs. 10,000,00/- and less would not be covered by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and would not be cognizable by Debt Recovery Tribunal.The Debts Recovery Tribunal covers matters relating to recovery of loan/dues of Rs. 10,000,00/- and above. 5. In this view of the matter, the bar of jurisdiction contained in Section 34 of the Act would not apply in respect of recovery of Rs. 6,02,993/-. Apart from the above, so far no proceedings before the Civil Court or before the permanent Lok Adalat have been instituted by the bank for recovery of the aforesaid amount. 6. 5. In this view of the matter, the bar of jurisdiction contained in Section 34 of the Act would not apply in respect of recovery of Rs. 6,02,993/-. Apart from the above, so far no proceedings before the Civil Court or before the permanent Lok Adalat have been instituted by the bank for recovery of the aforesaid amount. 6. The notice impugned has been issued at a pre-litigation stage in exercise of powers under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 for the purposes of making a settlement, if possible, before bringing any dispute for adjudication before the Court. 7. In the end learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter cannot even be resolved at any stage by the Lok Adalat, in as much as, it is not a matter relating to the public utility service. This is a matter which the petitioners can agitate before the Lok Adalat pursuant to the impugned notice. 8. Thus, in view of totality of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the issuance of the notice by the Lok Adalat at a pre-litigation stage in exercise of powers under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 is not at all without jurisdiction. It is only a device to explore the possibility of any settlement instead of getting the dispute adjudicated by the Court. The petitioner can appear and show-cause before the Lok Adalat pursuant to the above notice. Accordingly, I am of the view that no case for exercising any extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. ——————