(1.) The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order of DRAT dated 8 th August, 2007 and he has confined his grievance to the denial of right of cross -examination. The right of cross -examination is claimed on the basis that a bank official had deposed that he saw the Petitioner sign the disputed documents. The DRAT has dealt with the above issue in the following terms: -
(2.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of the Recovery Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has observed with regard to oral examination of a witness as under: -
(3.) In our view, Tribunal has rightly applied the aforementioned law and reached the correct conclusion that no exceptional circumstance had been made out to permit oral evidence particularly, when the oral evidence sought to be lead is contrary to a written document. Even otherwise, the Petitioner's request is contrary to the mandate of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.