1 C.W.P. No. 14748 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Civil Writ Petition No. 14748 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.2.2010 M/s. Septu (India) Pvt. Limited, Gurgaon --- Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh and others --- Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL *** PRESENT: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Mr. Pankaj Mulwani and Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocates for the petitioner. None for respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The prayer made in this petition filed by the petitioner- Company, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is that a writ of mandamus be issued directing respondent No.1, i.e. the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh (in short “the Tribunal”) to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to lead its evidence in the Original Application No. 264 of 2004, preferred by the respondent-Canara Bank, titled as “Canara Bank Versus Septu India Pvt. Ltd.” A further prayer has also been made for quashing order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Tribunal and 2 C.W.P. No. 14748 of 2009 the order dated 14.9.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.4, i.e. the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. The petitioner had moved an application before the Tribunal seeking permission to produce certain documents in evidence, which had been referred to by them in their written statement. However, the said prayer had been declined by the Tribunal as well as by the appellate authority, on the ground that though the said documents found mentioned in the written statement but they had not been attached as Annexures with the written statement and, thus, the same did not form part of the pleadings. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and further in view of the consensus order passed in the connected writ petition between the parties today, i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 13337 of 2009, it is considered appropriate in the interest of justice that the petitioner would be granted one opportunity to produce the documents which had been referred to in the written statement filed by it before the Tribunal, by way of evidence. Consequently, the order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Tribunal and the order dated 14.9.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi are quashed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) February 3, 2010 JUDGE *RKMALIK*