GITADEVI JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Pratibha Upasani, -
(1.) THIS Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the Order dated 9.10.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai on Exhibit Nos. 16,18, 20 and 22 in Original Application No. 1412 of 2000. By the impugned order, the application made by the original defendants/appellants herein, wherein prayer was made by them for declaration that the original application was not maintainable because of mis-joinder of several causes of action and mis-joinder of defendants in the original application, came to be rejected.
(2.) I have heard Mr. S.K. Jain for the appellants and Mr. Raut for the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings.
During the course of arguments Mr. Raut prayed for permission to tender some documents along with supporting affidavit. However, after going through those documents, which Mr. Raut, appearing for the respondent Bank sought to tender, it was revealed that those documents were not before the learned Presiding Officer, who passed the impugned order. In view of this, those documents were not taken on record. When arguments were concluded, I felt that the impugned Order has been passed on the basis of inadequate and insufficient material and opportunity of tendering those documents before the Trial Court should be given to the Bank therefore, direction will have to be given that if any application for amendment or for tendering documents is made by the respondent Bank, that is to be considered by the learned Presiding Officer on its own merits in accordance with law and decide the said application of the defendants afresh after hearing both the parties. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the DRT-II, Mumbai with the above mentioned directions. Hence, following Order is passed.
The impugned Order dated 9.10.2002 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the DRT-II, Mumbai for hearing the parties afresh in the fight of observations made above and proceed in accordance with law.
Misc. Appeal No. 444 of 2002 is disposed of in the above stated terms.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.