PRATAP SHAH Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed as against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-2 (DRT), Chennai in IA-38/2002 in TA-343/2001 for sending the document Power of Attorney Ex. A-21 to the Forensic Science Department of Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, for examination as to the age of the manuscript portion and the signatures contained in that document and objection was raised by the respondent Bank and the Presiding Officer, DRT, Chennai dismissed that petition holding that only to protract the proceedings the petition has been filed.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the typed portions in the Power of Attorney filed appears to be new and it would not have been of the year 1975 when the Power of Attorney was executed and the typed portion came into existence only at the later point of time and the Power of Attorney was also not notarized and the Power of Attorney is a fabricated one and this document has to be sent to the Government Forensic Laboratory, Chennai to find its age of the typed portion and also with regard to signatures.

(3.) THE Manager of the Branch has filed the suit for the recovery dues from the borrowers for the amount due from the borrowers from the Bank by signing the plaint, Vakalat, etc., and filed in the Court. Originally the plaint was filed in the High Court and then it was transferred to DRT. THE plaint was taken on file by the High Court and it was pending there and after the formation of the DRTs, it was transferred to DRT-2, Chennai. Only during the trial in the course of evidence the filing of the Power of Attorney had arisen and it was filed in the Court.