S VALLIAPPAN Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/appellant filed four Applications IA-374 to 377 of 2004 in OA-781/2001, and they all came to be dismissed by order dated 2.5.2005 passed by the DRT-II at Chennai. Aggrieved by the same these appeals have been filed.

(2.) Appeal MA-16/2005 has been filed against the dismissal of IA-374/2004 filed before the DRT, to implead seven parties as defendants in the OA MA-17/2006 has been filed as against the dismissal of IA-375/2004, praying the Tribunal to permit to make corrections in the reply statement. MA-18/2006 has been filed as against the dismissal of IA-376/2004 to permit the petitioner to file Additional Reply Statement MA-19/2006 has filed against the dismissal of IA-377/2004 praying the Tribunal to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the applicant Bank's witness.

(3.) AS the respondent has filed his proof affidavit and only from that, the appellant came to know of certain new facts, which were not available to him at the time of filing the reply statement and hire the request of the appellant is justified in seeking permission to file additional reply statement.