charge upon immovable property [section 16(c)], the same would have to be filed where the mortgaged property was situated. In contrast, we do not find any such provision / stipulation in section 19(1) of the RDDB Act. If a Bank/Financial Institution has to recover its dues either by enforcement of its security (immoveable or movable or both) or otherwise, it has to approach the DRT under section 19 of the RDDB Act. In such a case, the jurisdiction of the DRT is determined as per section 19(1) of the RDDB Act. In such a scenario, even though the mortgaged property may be situated outside the jurisdiction of the DRT, the same could be entertained by the DRT provided the jurisdictional requirements as set out in section 19(1) are satisfied. In other words, even though, the mortgaged property maybe situate outside its jurisdiction, the only condition that would be required to be satisfied to invest the DRT with territorial jurisdiction would be where (a) the Defendant, or where there are more than one, any of the Defendants, at the time of making the Application, actually and/or voluntarily reside or carrying on business or personally work for gain; or (b) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. For the DRT to entertain an Original Application filed by the Bank or Financial Institution under section 19 of the RDDB Act, the provisions of section 16 of the CPC would be wholly inapplicable.
