AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.M. Malik, J
The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 11.3.2011 declined the request made by the appellant for cross-examination of Mr. K.L. Garg, Deputy General Manager. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is a non-speaking order.
In the petition filed before the learned Trial Court, the following averments were made. The appellant had denied his liability and had denied the execution of documents. Appellant had also filed discharge of the alleged guarantees. Again Mr. K.L. Garg has made a false deposition before the Court. He admitted having no personal knowledge of this case. The verification in the above said affidavit filed by Mr. K.L. Garg is not admissible in law of evidence as per the law laid down in M/s. Miraj Marketing Corporation v. M/s. Vishakha Engineering and Another, : 115 (2004) DLT 471 (DB)=I (2005) CLT 25. It was further submitted that some documents are materially interpolated and it has become necessary to cross-examine the witness.
The learned Trial Court after hearing the abovesaid party dismissed the application while placing reliance on the celebrated authority by the Apex Court reported in Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association & Ors., : II (2002) BC 194 (SC)=II (2002) SLT 556=96 (2002) DLT 726 (SC)=(2002) 2 SCR 450. The learned Trial Court has quoted paras 22 and 23 of the said judgment.
On the other hand, Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there is no presumption that the Bank officer always states the truth. He has placed reliance on two Bombay High Court authorities reported in Sonu Textiles and Ors.v. Punjab National Bank, : I (2009) BC 310=2008(3) Bom CR 889 and Rajkumar S/o Sudarshan Agarwal v. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Ors., : II (2004) BC 485=2004(2) Bom CR 307.
I see no force in these arguments. The facts of above said authorities are different. There appears to be no need for cross-examination of any witness. It is not required that the Bank Manager must have the personal knowledge. Rule 12(7) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 mentions it clearly that, "if the defendant denies his liability to pay the claim made by the applicant, the Tribunal may act upon the affidavit of the applicant who is acquainted with the facts of the case or who has on verification of the record sworn the affidavit in respect of the contents of application and the documents as evidence. Rule 12 mentions it clear that the Bank officer need not have personal knowledge. It also specifies the other modes of proving the documents. All the facts involved can be known without cross-examining the witness. Documents in this case speak for themselves.
It is also clear that the cross-examination of witness entails enough time and request for cross- examination is made in order to procrastinate the proceedings. There must be some strong reasons for permitting the above said request. I see no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
Copies of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and one copy be sent to the learned DRT forthwith.