PRAKASH KANUDIA Vs. CHAIRPERSON, DRAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R.P. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Siddharth, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 19.4.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as DRT) as also the order dated 28.2.2000 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as DRAT).

(2.) BY means of the orders impugned, the application filed by the petitioners to cross examine Mr. J.S. Kanwar and Mr. S.M. Pandey, Bank officials, who had sworn the affidavits filed in evidence has been rejected. The statutory appeal filed against the order of rejection was dismissed in limine.

(3.) THE facts relevant for deciding the controversy in hand are that along with the original application, two affidavits dated 25.2.2003 and 28.2.2003 of Mr. Sudhansu Mohan Pandey, officer of the Bank of India posted at Koregaon Park, Branch, Maharashtra and Mr. J.S. Kanwar posted as Chief Manager (Credit) Bank of India Zonal Office, Kanpur Nagar; respectively were filed. Petitioners filed their joint written statement on 7.1.2004. In support of the written statement, affidavit dated 7.1.2004 was filed by the petitioners. In the written statement, petitioners inter alia denied the execution of various guarantees and revival letters/acknowledgments relied upon by the Bank and sought to prove by filing the affidavits of aforementioned two officers. An application dated 14.1.2004 under Rule 12(6) of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was moved by the petitioners. In the said applications, petitioners submitted that the averments made in the affidavits filed in evidence by the Bank officials were false and hence the petitioners/defendants be permitted to cross -examine them so as to prove falsity of the averments made by them in their affidavits. Application dated 14.1.2004 was rejected by DRT vide order dated 19.4.2005 on the ground that the affidavits were filed by the Bank officials to prove exhibits in support of the case of the applicant/Bank. The contesting defendants/petitioners may controvert the same by filing evidence, if any, in support of their defence of the case. It has been recorded that no material has been brought on record for which Bank officials could be put to cross -examination by the defendants/petitioners.