Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the execution petition in E.P.No.109 of 2006 in O.S.No.314 of 1993 on the file of Sub-Court, Tuticorin and set aside the same as illegal. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the first defendant, the first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 and 3 herein are the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit in O.S.No.314 of 1993 on the file of Sub-Court, Tuticorin. 3. The first respondent/plaintiff Bank has filed the suit for recovery of the amount due to the first respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.3,59,422/- with interest @ 17.25% p.a. 4. The trial Court after examining the witness and perusing the documents, passed the preliminary decree on 04.11.2003 and granted two months' time to deposit the decree amount. The defendants therein failed to pay the decree amount within time and hence, the trial Court on 05.04.2005, passed the final decree. 5. The first respondent Bank filed E.P.No.109 of 2006 in O.S.No.314 of 1993 on the file of Sub-Court, Tuticorin. Being aggrieved by the E.P. proceedings, the revision petitioner herein/first defendant has filed the present civil revision petition. 6. Heard Mr. C. Sundaravadivel, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. V. Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Bank. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent Bank is not entitled to bring the properties for sale in view of Section 31-A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and after the establishment of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the first respondent Bank contended that it is true that after passing of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the establishment of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted if the decree amount is above Rs.10 lakhs, but in this case, no transfer has been effected after the amendment of Section 31-A of the Act, therefore, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the civil Court has no jurisdiction, the matter has to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal after confirming the sale of first item of the properties. 9. 9. The question whether the amendment of Section 31-A of the Act and an Execution Petition in Civil Court to implement the decree passed by the Sub-Court is maintainable or not. This Court, by order, dated 11.08.2010, in C.R.P.NPD.(MD)No.1350 of 2008, held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to execute such decree. All the reasoning given by the learned Judge in the said order, is applicable in all four corners to the facts of this case also. 10. The learned counsel for the first respondent Bank submitted that this Court may transfer the E.P. to the Tribunal. Such return cannot be made. 11. On a mere reading of Section 31-A of the Act, I am of the view that the duty is cast upon the Bank Official to get back the papers and to present it before the correct forum or the Court can return for proper presentation before the proper forum. Till today, the Bank, who is the decree holder has not moved before the civil Court for return of the E.P. papers to present before the correct forum. In this case, the decree holder has not applied before the civil Court and therefore, the question of ordering to return does not arise. 12. For the above reasons, this civil revision petition is allowed. It is open to the first respondent Bank to receive the E.P. papers from the Sub-Court, Tuticorin and present it in the proper forum. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.