AMIT DINESH PATEL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service of notice of rule. At the request of the learned counsel for the respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today and heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

(2.) Mr.Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently submitted that the petitioners have raised preliminary contention in their application and requested to frame Preliminary Issue about the Court Fees etc. contending inter-alia that they are not guarantors and the Personal Guarantee is not Tri-parte Agreement and therefore, the same is not enforceable. It is further submitted that the learned DRT cannot sit tight over the I.A. No.1159 of 2018 filed in Original Application No.551 of 2018, for framing Issue. It is further submitted that it is the duty of the learned DRT to either allow or reject the I.A. No.1159 of 2018, however, learned DRT is not passing any order. It is submitted that if any order is passed by the learned DRT, the petitioners have right to challenge the said order before the appellate forum and if preliminary issue is not framed and the main Original Application No.551 of 2018 is decided by the learned DRT, then the petitioners will have to deposit 25% to 50% of the decretal amount that may be passed by the learned DRT, before the appellate tribunal and therefore, the rights of the petitioners are seriously prejudiced.

(3.) Mr.Rashesh Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondents Banks herein original Plaintiffs and vehemently resisted the present writ petition contending inter-alia that this writ petition is nothing but smart move by the petitioners to prolong the matter before the DRT. It is contended that Order 22 of the CPC would not be applicable to the DRT and DRT is required follow its own procedure. It is contended that after filing of the I.A. No.1159 of 2018, the petitioners herein had filed I.A. No.1427 of 2017 virtually seeking same prayers as prayed in I.A. No.1159 of 2018. However, said I.A. No.1427 of 2017 was not pressed by the petitioners herein before the DRT and same was disposed of by the learned DRT accordingly. However, the aforesaid material fact has been suppressed by the petitioners herein in the present petition and cursory reference is made in the petition that too at the fag end of the petition.