RAVINDRA Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants Mr. Ravindra Liladhar Rathi and Mr. Rajendra Liladhar Rathi/legal representatives of the original defendant No. 2 Mr. Liladhar Gopilal Rathi, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur in Interlocutory Application No. 376/2002 in Original Application No. 161/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the applicant Bank namely Bank of Maharashtra to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 2 Liladhar Gopilal Rathi.

(2.) Few facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows:

(3.) THE learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur after hearing both the sides and after considering the material placed before him came to the conclusion that as far as proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal were concerned, concept of abatement was not applicable, THE learned Presiding Officer also held that Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act states that the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal are not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but are guided by the principles of natural justice and that provisions embodied in Order 22 Rule 4(3) of CPC were not applicable to the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He further observed that if these provisions contained in Order 22, Rule 4 of C.P.C. are made applicable to proceedings before these Tribunals then it will be highly detrimental to the claimant Banks and financial institutions. Holding this, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the Bank. Being aggrieved, the present Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants.