1 WP 5388 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5388 OF 2010 State Bank of India .....Petitioner V/s. Azad Paper Box Mfg. & Ors. ..... Respondents Ms.Hina A Mody, for the petitioner. Mr.D.Banerji with Ms.Sapana Rachure i/by T.N.Tripathi & Co., for respondent No.3. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. The above petition is filed by the Bank challenging the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, Miscellaneous Appeal No.358 of 2008. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and set aside the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, by imposing the cost of Rs.10,000/-. Initially, respondent No.3 herein, had filed an intervention application before the Recovery Officer, which was rejected by the Recovery Officer by its order dated 03-01-2008. Against the said order, the respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the Presiding Officer, DRT, in which application for condonation of delay was also filed by said respondent. The said application for condonation of delay was dismissed by the Presiding Officer, DRT-III, on 12-09-2008. Being aggrieved, the 2 WP 5388 of 2010 respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the DRAT. The appellate Tribunal by its order dated 01-06-2010 set aside the order passed by the Presiding Officer. Hence, this petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are interested in delaying the matter. She submits that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the order passed by the appellate Tribunal is not required to be interfered with, then at least, DRT may be directed to dispose of the appeal No.26 of 2008. It is submitted by her that even though the appeal number is mentioned as 36/2008, infact, the correct number is 26 of 2008. Considering the reasoning given by the appellate Tribunal, the said order is not required to be interfered with by this Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The Debt Recovery Tribunal is directed to dispose of the said Appeal No.26 of 2008 at the earliest and in any case latest by 30-10-2010. However, attempts should be made to dispose of the said appeal even before the said date. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents will not ask for any adjournment and will co-operate with the early hearing. 3. In view of what is stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. No cost. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )