- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 15th January, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in an Interlocutory Application No. 9008 of 2013, preferred by the original petitioner in Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C)No. 6962 of 2013.
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the original writ petitioner-Respondent No.1 had taken Cash Credit as well as Term Loan from this appellant and ultimately, he had not paid Rs. 585 lacs approximately for which notice was issued under SubSection (2) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act,2002 for the sake of brevity). Thereafter, objections were filed by the respondent no.1 and ultimately an order dated 15th October,2013 was passed by this appellant under Section 13(3)(A) of SARFAESI Act,2002, by which the request for restructuring the loan of respondent no-1 was declared as non-performing assets. Thereafter, possession notice dated 17th October, 2013 was also issued by this appellant under Sub-Section (4) of Section 13 of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thereafter, writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 6962 of 2013 was preferred by the respondent No.1 on 19th November, 2013 in which prayer was made to the effect that account of this respondent may be restructured. In the said writ petition an order dated 15th October, 2013 was passed by this appellant under Sub-Section (3)(A) of Section 13 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It further appears that this order was not specifically challenged in the prayer portion of the writ petition, but, it was challenged by preferring an Interlocutory Application No. 9008 of 2013, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and against the order of learned Single Judge the bank has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the reason that as already the possession notice has been issued on 17th October, 2013, no useful purpose will be served by this amendment because under Section 13 an appeal is tenable against the order passed by this appellant under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, before Debt Recovery Tribunal. The prayer for amendment which was allowed by the learned Single Judge is also challenged on the ground that it will change the very nature of the writ petition. The things cannot be done directly which has been done indirectly in the facts of the present case. Counsel for the appellant also relied upon Section 17(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and has submitted that possession notice under Section 13(4) has not been challenged, no useful purpose will be served if amendment is allowed.
(3.) It appears that learned Single Judge has not committed any error in allowing the amendment as sought for in Interlocutory Application No. 9008 of 2013 preferred by the original petitioner in W.P.(C ) No. 6962 of 2013 mainly for the reason that by allowing this amendment the nature of the writ petition will not be change at all. Moreover, the order passed by this appellant is already annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.;