Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed assailing the order dt.16.04.2010 (Annx.1) whereby appeal preferred by the Petitioner, who as alleged was guarantor, was rejected on the premise that he failed to make pre -deposits while filing the appeal preferred by him before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
(2.) COUNSEL for Petitioner submits that Petitioner is a senior citizen and a retired government servant and a guarantor and after the order was passed by the DRT he could not arrange to make pre -deposits while filing appeal before DRAT. However, extension was sought by filing application but the same was rejected by the Tribunal vide order impugned dt.16.04.2010. It has also been informed to this Court that Rs. 8 lacs have already been deposited by him and Rs. 579235/ - is further to be deposited to make appeal competent to be heard on merits. Counsel further submits that if the Petitioner is not permitted to deposit the balance amount it will cause prejudice to him and his right to be heard on merits on the appeal being preferred will certainly be jeopardized. Counsel for Respondent, on the other hand, submits that sufficient opportunity was granted to the Petitioner to make pre -deposit as provided under law but if he has failed to deposit the same no further indulgence is required to be granted to him under equitable jurisdiction of this Court u/Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) TAKING note of the submissions made, this Court in the facts of the instant case considers it appropriate to grant one further opportunity to the Petitioner to deposit the balance pre -deposit which as informed to this Court is Rs. 579235/ - and he undertakes to deposit the same on or before 15.02.2011.;