Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) BOTH the matters have come up on application filed by Respondent u/Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of exparte interim order passed by this Court dt.09.06.2010. However, with consent of the parties, the matters have been finally heard.
(2.) THE Petitioners, as alleged, are borrowers have filed the present petitions assailing the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal whereby the application seeking amendment in the written statement Under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure filed at the stage when the matter riped up for final hearing was rejected vide order dt.01.01.2010 and the appeal preferred was also dismissed on 30.03.2010. It has been recorded by the Tribunal CW -8219/10 CW -8218/10 (2) in its order impugned that after the written statement was filed application was earlier moved by the Defendant -Petitioner on 07.10.2002 seeking permission to cross -examine the Managers Mr. KB Garg and Mr. SK Kaushik which was dismissed on 10.09.2003. Again the same prayer was made by filing application for cross -examination of two witnesses which was also rejected by the Tribunal and thereafter present misc. application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the written statement which is almost after eight years of filing of the original application and the matter was indisputably riped up for final hearing and what has been basically prayed for seeking amendment in the written statement is that since the CBI has filed charge -sheet and bungling has been pointed out, hence the Tribunal does not hold any jurisdiction to examine the Original Application filed by the secured creditor.
(3.) THE learned Tribunal taking note of the submissions made and the fact about past conduct of the present Defendant -Petitioner did not consider it appropriate to grant permission to carry out amendment in the CW -8219/10 CW -8218/10 (3) written statement as prayed for and rejected the application vide order dt.01.01.2010. However, when the appeal was preferred the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in its order dt.30.03.2010 (Annx.4) while rejecting the contention of the Petitioner - Defendant has recorded reasons in para 11 -14 of its order and observed that as regards the matter being examined by the CBI, it has been taken note of in the written statement and is part of the record and the effect of CBI investigation may be examined by the Tribunal as well but what has been prayed for in the application at a belated stage under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the written statement is only to delay the proceedings.;