AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellants filed S.A. bearing No. 06/2026 titled as M/s Kalsi Plywood & others v. Bank of Maharashtra & others which is stated to be pending before DRT-I, Chandigarh.
The appellants filed an application for rejection of written statement filed by the respondent no.1 bank on the ground that the written submission was not supported by the affidavit of bank. The DRT-I, Chandigarh in the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 has observed that as the affidavit in support of written statement is filed along with reply to the application filed by the appellants as such the written statement cannot be rejected. The order dated 11.03.2026 reads as under:
SA/6/2026
M/S KALSI PLYWOOD Vs BANK OF MAHARASHTRA
11.03.2026
Item No. 11
Present: Mr. Lovish Kukkar, Counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. J.S. Bagga, Counsel for respondent bank.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, auction purchaser/in person.
Heard on the application filed by the applicant for rejection the written statement filed by the respondent bank, on the ground that the written statement is not supported by an affidavit of the bank. The bank has filed reply to the application, and along with the reply, an affidavit has also been filed stating that the affidavit in respect of the written statement has also been filed. In view of the fact that the bank has filed an affidavit in support of the written statement, no ground to reject the written statement is made out. Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed. In SA, to come up on 17.03.2026. Interim to continue till the next date.
Sh. Lovish Kukkar, Counsel for the appellants after referring the Rule 12(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 argued that the written statement of the defendant/respondent no.1 must be supported by an affidavit to be sworn by the defendant/respondent no.1. Sh. Kukkar, Counsel further argued that the written statement was not supported by the affidavit hence liable to be rejected and argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the written statement filed by the defendant/ respondent no.1 be rejected.
It is appearing from the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 that the written statement filed by the defendant/respondent no.1 was not supported by the affidavit which was subsequently filed along with the reply to the application of the appellants. Rule 12(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 mandated that the written statement should be supported by an affidavit however, if affidavit in support of written statement is not filed or is filed subsequently it is appearing to be mere irregularity not illegality on the basis of which the written statement can be rejected. The said irregularity can be cured subsequently by filing the affidavit in support of the written statement. The affidavit in support of the written statement is already on record. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.