G ANANTHSENA REDDY Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records related to and connected with the orders dated 09.03.2018, passed in I.A.No.357 of 2018 in O.A.No.2513 of 2017, by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad and quash the same, holding it as illegal, arbitrary, perverse, vitiated by jurisdictional error and illegal exercise of power vested in it.

(2.) Heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, counsel for petitioners and Sri B.S.Prasad, Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Bank.

(3.) It has been contended by the petitioners that the 2nd respondent- Bank had filed O.A.No.2513 of 2017 against the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.3 to 6 seeking a recovery certificate for recovery of a total debt of Rs.1,35,85,604.00 together with interest and future interest @ 13.75% per annum. The petitioners contend that as far as prayers (a), (b) and (c) are concerned, they have no grievance, but their grievance is only in respect of prayer (d) made by the 2nd respondent- Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to declare that the mortgage created over "A" to "C" schedule properties by defendant No.2 in favour of the Bank is valid as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the sale transaction between defendant No.2 and defendant Nos.5 to 9 is subject to rights of the Bank as a mortgagee over the said schedule properties and the Bank has a right to proceed against the said schedule of properties for recovery of the debt due to it from defendant Nos.1 to 4. The petitioners contend that they are the purchasers of property from the borrowers of the Bank i.e. from respondents 3 to 6. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of Bank in trying to include the properties of petitioners also in O.A.No.2513 of 2017. The petitioners further contend that the 2nd respondent-Bank had filed I.A.No.357 of 2018 in O.A.No.2513 of 2017 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking permission to mark documents listed in the Annexure to the petition as secondary evidence, as the original documents are not available as the same were delivered to CBI during the course of investigation in connection with a crime registered against defendant No.1 before the Tribunal and respondent No.3 herein, in C.C.No.2 of 2014 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court and the 2nd respondent-Bank had produced Photostat copies of said documents and prayed the Debts Recovery Tribunal to permit the 2nd respondent- Bank to file those documents as secondary evidence as the original documents were not available with it. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, after considering the said I.A., was pleased to permit the 2nd respondent-Bank to mark the Photostat copies of the original documents and allowed I.A.No.357 of 2018 vide orders dated 09.03.2018. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.