Bank of Maharashtra vs Praveen Khare and Anr

R. S. Kulhari, Chairperson

On the basis of the urgency application filed on behalf of the appellant, the matter is taken-up today and with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the same is finally heard. I. A. stands disposed off.

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Lucknow, whereby the appellant-Bank was directed to file the details of private witness namely Ashok Sahu on affidavit and the matter was listed for final hearing.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the presence of witness was taken as an additional precaution, which was not required, while taking the possession of the immovable property. The Tribuanl below has travelled beyond jurisdiction to direct the Bank for filing the details of such private witness. Therefore, the order dated 12.11.2020 to this extent be set aside.

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Tribuanl below may pass order as deemed appropriate for just and proper decision on the issue involved in the case. If the detail of witness is filed before the Tribuanl below, it would cause no prejudice to the Bank, so there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

It is apparent that vide impugned order the Bank was directed to file the details of private witness and was further restrained from taking physical possession of the secured assets. The dispute was with regard to service of possession notice to the SA-applicant. Thus, whether the notice was properly served or not, is yet to be decided by the Tribuanl below in the S.A. Since the issue of one private witness was involved, therefore, the Tribunal below has sought the details of such witness. Whether the witness is required for service of possession notice or for taking possession of immovable property, is not the issue in this appeal. The impact of such witness is to be decided by the Tribuanl below. The Bank is free to file the details of such witness or to choose not to file, if so advised, but the Tribuanl below has not committed any infirmity in passing such order, as considered appropriate during the course of proceeding. As such the appeal is premature. If the Tribunal below records any finding with regard to the presence/absent of witness or draws any adverse inference for non compliance of this order, then that finding will give rise cause to the Bank to challenge the same in accordance with law.

Thus, the appellant-Bank is not entitled to get any relief in this appeal at this stage and the same is disposed off in the above terms. No order as to costs.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties as well as to the DRT concerned and be also uploaded on the e-DRT portal.