CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. KURIAN BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Respondent no. 1 appearing for himself and for respondent no. 2 waives service.

(2.) BY consent rule is made returnable forthwith.

(3.) THIS petition, inter alia, raises a question of construction of section 20 (1) of the Recovery of debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1973 (Act 31 of 1793 ). The petitioner is a nationalized Bank and had filed a civil suit No. 473 of 1787 in the court of Civil Judge Sr. Dn. , Pune and then the said suit was transferred to the Debts recovery Tribunal, Pune being Original Application no. 30/p/2000 claiming a sum of Rs. 11,05,667. 91 together with interest with respect to various facilities granted to respondent nos. 3 and 4 and to which respondent nos. 1 and 2 stood as guarantors. As the original documents were not traceable, the petitioner took out an application being Exh. 43 for permission to lead secondary evidence. The Debts recovery Tribunal) Pune vide its order dated 16th june, 2003 allowed the petitioner to lead secondary-evidence. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 challenged the said order before the Debts Recovery Appellate tribunal in Misc. Appeal No. 319 of 2003. By order dated 10th February, 2004, the Appellate Tribunal was pleased to allow the said appeal and set aside the order dated 14th June, 2003 passed by the Debts recovery Tribunal, Pune. The petitioner Bank now approaches this Court by means of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution. The main question in this petition is whether an appeal lay to the Debts Recovery appellate Tribunal under sec. 20 (1) from the aforesaid order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.