Decided on December 20,2004



K.S.Kumaran, - (1.) FIRST respondent State Bank of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank) has filed O.A. 190/95 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellant (7th defendant in the O.A.; and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant) and seven others for the recovery of the money allegedly due to it. The appellant filed the Miscellaneous Application 493/2003 for a direction to examine the documents executed by the 5th defendant, including two revival letters dated 26.8.1991 by the expert at Central Forenisc Science Laboratory at Shimla or at any other place. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 5.3.2004, dismissed the said application observing that the application has been filed to prolong the proceedings, that a similar application filed by the 8th defendant was dismissed by the Tribunal on 17.9.2003, and that if the signatures of the 5th defendant had been forged as alleged, then the 5th defendant should have filed the application and not the 7th defendant.
(2.) Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The 1st respondent Bank has filed a reply opposing the appeal, and the appellant has filed a rejoinder to the same. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contends that as per O.A. the 1st defendant company is the principal borrower while the defendants 2 to 8 are the directors. He also points out that as per the averments in the O.A. the 5th defendant allegedly executed the revival letters dated 26.8.1991. He also points out the averment in the written statement filed by them denying the execution of these revival letters. He, therefore, contends that the two revival letters should be examined by the Hand Writing Expert for opinion. But, the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank contends that though the written statement purports to have been filed on behalf of the defendants 1, 5, 7 and 8, the 5th defendant has not signed the same. He also contends that the 5th defendant had not filed any application to examine these two revival letters by an expert, (if really they were fabricated documents). THE learned Counsel for the respondent Bank also contends that the 8th defendant, who is the wife of the 7th defendant, had filed a similar application, and that the same was also dismissed on 17.9.2003. THE learned Counsel for the respondent Bank contends that on an earlier application (I.A. 753/2002) the DRT passed orders on 24.7.2003 directing the 5th defendant to be present for giving the signatures in the presence of the Tribunal, before making any order on that application, but, the 5th defendant did not appear, and, ultimately, the application was dismissed on 17.9.2003. He also contends that either the appellant (7th defendant) or the 8th defendant has been filed one application or other for the purpose of delaying the matter and their intention is only to protract the proceedings. He points out that I.A. 752/2002 filed by the 8th defendant for cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent Bank was also dismissed, and an earlier application 37/2002 for similar relief was also dismissed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.