Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 11th June, 2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad on the application filed by the Petitioner for production of documents in the pending Original Application No. 61 of 2003 filed by the Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Other Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 15th February, 2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal by which the appeal filed by the Petitioners for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed.
(2.) IT transpires from the record of the writ petition that the Central Bank of India filed Original Application No. 61 of 2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 19 of the Act for recovery of Rs. 52,23,949/ - from the Defendant -Petitioner. On 16th February, 2004, the Petitioners filed an application for abatement of the Original Application against Defendant No. 2 -Aijaz Habib as he had expired on 22nd August, 1998 prior to the institution of the Original Application. The Petitioners thereafter also filed written statement on 19th September, 2006 and apart from many other grounds, the Petitioners also challenged the entries contained in the statement of account filed by the Bank. In particular, the Petitioners pointed out that entry dated 29th June, 2001 in the statement of account for Rs. 3,38,825/ - in respect of Cash Credit Limit was an unauthorised entry and the said amount was debited without their permission and consent. It was also pointed out that the entry dated 26th August, 2000 in the statement of account of Rs. 5,00,000/ - in respect of Packing Credit Advance Limit was also an unauthorised entry and the amount was debited without their permission or consent. The Petitioners, therefore, moved an application dated 19th September, 2006 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for production of the entries/instruments in respect of the aforesaid entries made in the statement of account. On 19th September, 2006, the Debt Recovery Tribunal permitted the Bank to file its objections to the said application but it was not filed. Subsequently, time was repeatedly granted by the Tribunal to the Bank to file the objections but still the Bank did not file any objection. This application was, however, disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 11th June, 2009 with the observation that it shall be decided at the time of disposal of the Original Application. This order was assailed by the Petitioners before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal as according to the Petitioners it was necessary for the Bank to produce the instruments/vouchers by which the amount had been withdrawn so that the disputed entries in the statement of account can be verified. This appeal has been dismissed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal by the order dated 15th February, 2011 which has been assailed in this petition.
(3.) THE order dated 15th February, 2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is as follows: 1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 challenging the order dated 11.06.2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad. By the said order, the DRT has decided two applications, firstly the application in relation to the abatement on the ground of death of Aijaz Habib, who was arrayed as Defendant No. 2, and secondly, the application filed by the present Appellants for production and inspection of the documents. 2. The Tribunal by impugned order dated 11.06.2009 held that since the objectors have failed to prove the death of Defendant No. 2, who died on 22.08.1998, therefore, the request for abatement of the proceedings against him was rejected. With regard to the production of documents, the Tribunal held that the maintenance of books of accounts by the Bank can be decided at the time of disposal of recovery proceedings on merits. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants did not argue anything with regard to the first aspect, which was in relation to the abatement of the case due to alleged death of the Defendant No. 2 -Aijaz Habib, but pressed the appeal in relation to the order passed by the DRT, wherein the Tribunal has directed that the maintenance of books of accounts by the Bank can be decided at the time of disposal of the recovery proceedings on merits. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant read over the application filed by the Appellant before the Tribunal for production of the documents. It was stated in the application that until the vouchers with relevant documents are produced, it will be very difficult for the Appellants/Defendants to prove that there had been unauthorised entry in respect of Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 3,38,825/ -, as according to the present Appellants, the said entry is without permission and consent of the Defendants. In this reference this is to be seen that it is for the bank to prove the statement of accounts i.e. maintenance of books of accounts to substantiate and prove the case, the bank has to suffer for the same.;