1 wpl1939.10gp.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1939 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1940 OF 2010 M/s. Diagnostat Laboratories Represented through its Proprietor Mr. Rakesh Gupta ....Petitioners. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce ....Respondents. Mr. V.M. Talreja for the Petitioners. Mr. Vinay Kumar Tewari with Mr. Dipankar Das i/by M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 1st September, 2010 P.C.: 1 The Appellate Tribunal has given cogent reasons while dismissing the Appeal filed by the present Petitioners. The Petitioners have filed the said appeal against an interlocutory order passed by the DRT. The DRT on the application of the Petitioners, permitted to the Petitioners to cross-examine certain witnesses and found that cross-examination of some of the witnesses is not necessary. In our view, the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal is not required to be interfered by us in our extra- 2 wpl1939.10gp.sxw ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially when the matter is still at large before the DRT. At the time of final hearing before the DRT, if any evidence comes to light, the Petitioners may revive the request for cross-examination of some witnesses, if any material is ultimately found during the time of hearing. 2 However, we are not expressing any opinion, in any way, in this aspect. In case, the Petitioners are required to file an appeal against the order of the DRT, it will be open to the Petitioners to raise this point even in such appeal. 3 Subject to what is stated above, both the Petitions are dismissed. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)