PARASRAMPURIA CREDIT AND INVESTMENT LTD Vs. HDFC BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants, being aggrieved by the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Murnbai on Exhibit No. 60 in Original Application No. 1723/1999. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the respondent Bank praying for taking on record statement of account, which earlier was not filed by them, albeit with costs to be given to the appellants herein.

(2.) After hearing both the sides and after considering the explanation given by the Bank, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the Bank to produce the statement of account by his reasoned order, which is impugned before me. The learned Presiding Officer allowed the same with costs of Rs. 10, 000/- to the defendants to be paid by the Bank and further directed the defendants to file their additional written statement and reply to the statement of account. He observed that ordinarily when a party did not produce documents when asked by the other side then it was not to be allowed to produce the same subsequently, but that it was not inflexible rule, when the Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is guided the principles of natural justice rather than the formal rules of procedure. He further observed that lapse on the part of Bank officer should not desentitle the Bank from legitimately producing the legal evidence. He further observed that by allowing the Bank to produce the statement of account, no substantial prejudice would cause to the defendants and whatever prejudice might be caused, that would be taken care of by allowing the defendants to file written statement and reply to the statement of account. Observing this, we allowed the application of Bank with costs of Rs. 10, 000/- which the Bank was required to pay to the defendants.