M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 14-8-1997 in Writ Appeal No. 2876 of 1997. The Writ Appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 9-4-1997 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant against the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal rejecting the application of the appellant filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) The appellant was the 5th defendant in the suit filed by the 3rd respondent, namely, the Corporation-Bank which has its zonal office at Bangalore. The suit was filed in the year 1985 by the said Bank against defendants 1 to 4 belonging to Tadikonda family residing at Guntur in Andhra Pradesh and against the appellant I.T.C. Limited. The relief claimed in the suit was for a sum of Rs. 52,59,639.66. The defendants 1 to 4 above mentioned are respondents 4 to 7 in this appeal. The first respondent is the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the 2nd respondent is the Debt Recovery Tribunal. After the suit was filed in the Civil Court it was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 9-10-1995. Before the said Tribunal the appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejecting the plaint so far as the appellant was concerned on the ground that no valid cause of action had been shown against the appellant. The said application was rejected by the Tribunal on 12-12-1996 holding as follows:- "Objections filed. Heard. Cause of action is a mixed question of fact and law. Hence I.A. 3 cannot be entertained at this stage. Post for evidence". ;