Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) This petition has been preferred questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 23.3.2006, whereby the appellate authority has set aside the order dated 13.6.2003 and has remanded the matter to the Recovery Tribunal for decision afresh. The petitioners herein are running a hotel business and the dispute relates to recovery of debts arising out of a loan agreement between the Allahabad Bank - Respondent No.2 and the petitioners as well as the decision on the counter claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal.
(2.) The bank proceeded for recovery of the amount by filing a Suit which was later on transferred before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in which orders were passed. Simultaneously, the petitioners had also filed a counter claim which, according to the petitioners, was partly accepted. Aggrieved, the petitioners as well as the Bank both filed appeals before the appellate Tribunal, which has given rise to the present writ petition arising out of the order in appeal dated 23.3.2006. The Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order of the Recovery Tribunal and has remanded the matter back for decision afresh.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an order of remand by the Tribunal was not in conformity with law inasmuch as the entire evidence had already been adduced and there was no demand of leading any additional evidence by the Bank so as to warrant the exercise of discretion of remand. Learned counsel contends that the appellate Tribunal erred in not proceeding to decide the matter itself and no cogent reasons have been recorded as to why the decision of the Debt Recovery Tribunal was not in proper perspective. Learned counsel contends that without giving any reasons as to why the order of the Recovery Tribunal was improper, there was no occasion for remand of the case.;