- (1.) Heard Sri Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Jivesh, Advocate and Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for the contesting respondent-Bank.
(2.) In an extra bulky paper book, running in more than 600 pages, issue raised in this writ petition filed under Section 226/227 of the Constitution is really a short one, whether orders dated 03.4.2012, 27.11.2012 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "DRT") and dated 8.1.2013 passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "DRAT") which have the effect of allowing amendment application dated 16.1.2012 preferred by original applicant i.e. Bank of India are correct and justified. The question of law raised is "whether prerequisites before allowing a belated amendment application are satisfied in the case in hand?".
(3.) The brief factual matrix, to understand the dispute reads as under:;