AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Bhasin, J
The appellant is aggrieved by an order passed by the learned DRT refusing him permission to cross-examine Bank witness and also to direct the respondents to produce certain documents based on which it was claiming to be assignee of the debt in question which undisputedly the appellant claims he had taken from the erstwhile Barclays Bank. The O.A. proceeding is going on for a recovery of Rs. 29,92,362/- as on 5.9.2011 with pendente lite and future interest. The appellant says that he is challenging the very claim of the respondent No. 1 as an assignee of the debt in question and that necessitated moving an application for direction to it to produce all relevant documents and also for a permission to cross-examine Bank witness.
Learned DRT vide impugned order had rejected both these prayers but at the same time it has been observed that all the aspects and grievances raised by the appellant will be taken into consideration and dealt with at the time of final arguments.
I do not find any illegality of the aforesaid decision of the DRT when complete liberty has been given to the appellant to raise all his grievances including the one which has been raised in the present appeal, at the time of final hearing. It is needless to state that the DRT will examine all the grievances of the appellant including his challenge to the claim of respondent No. 1 being a lawful assignee of the debt in question. As far as the prayer for permitting him to cross-examine Bank witness is concerned, no case is made out for permitting cross-examine of the Bank witness of respondent No. 1 ARC in view of the fact that appellant himself is admitting having taken the loan from Barclays Bank. In fact, during the course of the hearing when it was put to him as to why he had not paid the money when admittedly he had taken loan from Barclays Bank, he says that he would pay to Barclays Bank its dues, if it comes out with any application for payment of its dues. It was then put to him as to whether he was ready to deposit the claimed amount with the DRAT, the appellant kept on maintaining that he will pay the dues of the Barclays Bank as and when it comes out with any application for recovery against the appellant.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Record of the DRT be sent back.
The DRT shall dispose of the O.A., uninfluenced by the dismissal of the present appeals.