JUDGMENT : The petitioners had advanced certain credit facilities to one Kakkassery Autos, in which one K.O.Thomas, father of the 1 st respondent was a partner. Since the afore Kakkassery Autos had defaulted the repayment of the credit facility, the petitioner-Bank instituted O.A. No.67/2010 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. Simultaneously, steps were also taken by the petitioner against the properties of the deceased Sri. Thomas having an extent of 67.75 cents. 2. The petitioner, upon coming to know about the pendency of the Original Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, had entered appearance and had also filed the written statement on 10.05.2010. Later, the 1 st respondent herein instituted O.S.No.208/2011 before the Sub court, Tirur, which is produced as Ext.P1 in this Original Petition, seeking for a declaration that the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in the suit (1 st respondent herein) in the name of the wife of the deceased cannot be made use for the procuring a loan from Puthanathani Branch and also for a further declaration that the transaction so entered is not binding upon him. The petitioner noticed that the 1 st respondent herein has been prosecuting the very same point before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as well as the Sub Court, Tirur and therefore, filed I.A. No.604/2012 in O.S.No. 208/2011 under the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) seeking to stay the proceedings in the plaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. By Ext.P6 dated 21.07.2016, the Sub Court, Tirur, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein. 3. It is in the afore situation that the petitioner has filed the captioned Original Petition before this Court. 4. A counter afÏdavit is filed by the 1st respondent herein essentially pointing out that the powers available to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the powers available to the Civil Court are different, and that the Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot consider the claim made by the 1 st respondent in the Civil Suit, etc., 5. I have heard Sri. Ashish K. John, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Hari Sharma the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent herein. 6. I have heard Sri. Ashish K. John, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Hari Sharma the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent herein. 6. The dispute in this Writ Petition is as regards the sustainability or otherwise of Ext.P6 order, by which the Sub Court, Tirur, has refused to stay the trial of the suit- O.S.No.208/11- till the final disposal of OA.No.67/2010, pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. The petitioner had pointed out before the Sub Court, in its application under Section 10 of the CPC, that the 1 st respondent herein had declaration with respect to the Power of attorney executed by him in favour of his mother and that almost the very same contention has been raised in Ext.P3 written statement filed by the 1st respondent herein as the 7 th defendant before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, this has not been accepted by the Sub Court. 7. This Court notices that the 1 st respondent herein, in Ext.P3 written statement has specifically raised the following contentions:- “ 5. In this Context, it is pointed out that the 1 st defendant had availed a loan from the ponnani Branch of the Applicants Bank. This defendant had authorized the 6 th defendant herein to creating a mortgage in the said Branch only, vide a specific power of attorney, that too with respect to 35 cents of land only, specifically made mentioned in the said power of attorney. The said loan has been closed. This defendant had never authorized any person to act on his behalf in respect of any property in which this defendant is having an undivided interest. Any such act if done is only at the risk of the persons involved therein. No legally enforceable right can be created by any such act without the express and written consent of this defendant. Any act done in connection thereof is void abinitio. 6. This defendant has not given any power of attorney or any other authorization to the 6 th defendant to mortgage any property included as C Schedule item No.1 to the applicant Bank. Therefore, the creation of the mortgage by the 6 th defendant on behalf of this defendant on the basis of an inexistent power of attorney is void. 6. This defendant has not given any power of attorney or any other authorization to the 6 th defendant to mortgage any property included as C Schedule item No.1 to the applicant Bank. Therefore, the creation of the mortgage by the 6 th defendant on behalf of this defendant on the basis of an inexistent power of attorney is void. Since the creation of the alleged mortgage is void, there is no charge created upon C Schedule item No.1.C Schedule item no.1 is not liable to be proceeded against for the recovery of the alleged loan amounts. No decree is liable to be passed against this defendant as this defendant is not a party to the agreement and the C Schedule is also not liable to be proceeded against with in this application as there is no valid mortgage. The applicant has no legally enforceable charge over the said item of property.” (underline supplied) 8. Sri.Hari Sharma, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent herein, points out that the mortgage with reference to the property in question was created after the death of Sri.K.O. Thomas by his mother- the 2 nd respondent herein. The contention in the written statement is to the effect that the power of attorney executed by him was a specific power of attorney, with reference to 35 cents of land an altogether different property. He points out that the 1 st respondent herein has therefore permitted his mother to create a mortgage only in respect of the said 35 cents of property and not any other piece of land. He also points out that the said power of attorney was with reference to availing credit facility from Ponnani Branch whereas the credit facility availed by the defaulter, which was the subject matter of the application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, was with reference to the facility obtained from Puthanathani branch. 9. The said contention of the petitioner has to be analyzed with reference to the further contention raised in paragraph 6. In paragraph 6, the 1 st respondent herein has specifically raised a contention that the creation of the alleged mortgage with reference to the property is void, for the reason stated in paragraph 5. 10. In such circumstances, the provision of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to be referred to. In paragraph 6, the 1 st respondent herein has specifically raised a contention that the creation of the alleged mortgage with reference to the property is void, for the reason stated in paragraph 5. 10. In such circumstances, the provision of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to be referred to. Chapter IV of the Act, under Section 19 provides the filing of application to the Tribunal. Sub-Section (5) thereto reads as under:- “(5) (i) the defendant shall within a period of thirty days from the date of service of summons, present a written statement of his defence including claim for set-off under sub-section (6) or a counter-claim under sub-section (8), if any, and such written statement shall be accompanied with original documents or true copies thereof with the leave of the Tribunal, relied on by the defendant in his defence:” A reading of sub-Section (5) to Section 19 shows that a defendant is entitled to raise his defense in the written statement. Here in Ext.P3 written statement, the 1 st respondent herein has speci raised a defense, with reference to the power of attorney executed by him in favour of the 2 nd respondent herein - wife of K.O.Thomas and his mother. 11. It is in the light of the above facts, as borne out from the written statement filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal by the 1 st respondent herein, the prayers made by the 1 st respondent in Ext.P1 suit is to be taken into account. 12. A reference to the averments contained in Ext.P1 suit shows that in paragraph 2, the 1st respondent has specifically pointed out that the power of attorney, executed by him is a specific power of attorney, that it was only in respect to 35 cents situated in Aloor village, that a mortgage can be created only from the Ponnani branch etc. Thus, the contentions raised in Ext.P3 (written statement) and the pleadings in Ext.P1 (suit) are one and the same and it is on that basis, in Ext.P1 (suit), the 1 st respondent herein has sought for certain declarations. 13. In such a situation, the Sub Court, Tirur, was not justified in having rejected IA.No.604/2005 filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the CPC. 14. In this connection, Sri. 13. In such a situation, the Sub Court, Tirur, was not justified in having rejected IA.No.604/2005 filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the CPC. 14. In this connection, Sri. Hari Sharma referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. and Others v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and others ( 2009 (8) SCC 646 ) , in support of his contention that the 1st respondent was justified in approaching the Civil Court since the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not having the trappings of a Civil Court. The afore judgment, it is true, held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has been constituted with a specific purpose having a limited jurisdiction and the debtor cannot seek a declaratory relief from the Debtor Recovery Tribunal. However, I notice that the petitioner has presented the application under Section 10 of the CPC, specifically pointing out that the 1st defendant’s contention in Ext.P1 suit as well as Ext.P3 written statement was with reference to the specific power of attorney executed by him as regards the 35 cents of property. It is the ‘defense’ raised by the 1 st defendant herein, with respect to the provision of Section 19 (5) of the Act. 15. In such a situation, I am of the opinion that even though the Debt Recovery Tribunal may not have the trappings of a Civil Court, the contention raised by the 1 st respondent herein, with reference to the aforesaid ‘specific power of attorney’ is a valid defense available to the 1 st defendant herein and therefore, the application presented under Section 10 of the CPC by the petitioner herein ought to have been acted upon by the Sub Court, Tirur, 16. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, the Original Petition (Civil) is allowed. The order dated 21.07.2016 issued by the Sub court, Tirur (Ext.P6) will stand set aside. There will be a stay of further proceedings including the trial of O.S.No.208/2017 pending before the Sub court, Tirur, till final disposal of O.A. No.67/2010 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam.