(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1035 OF 2008 Progressive Exports P. Ltd......Petitioners Vs. Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta & Anr...Respondents Mr. M.M. Vashi i/b. M.P.Vashi & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. V. Kothari i/b. Apex Law Partners for respondent No.1. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. DATED: 17th October, 2008 DATED: 17th October, 2008 DATED: 17th October, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner by Respondent No.2 before D.R.T. In the said proceedings respondent No.1 moved an application that they be added as a party to the proceedings. That application was allowed on the contention raised by the intervenor. 2. The contention of the intervenor was that an agreement for sale between the intervenor and the petitioner dated 19th October, 1977 was entered into. As the sale deed was not entered into the intervenor filed Suit bearing No.1414 of 1979 in the High Court which was decreed in favour of the intervenor by judgment dated 12th November, 2004. (-2-) In view of that the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T.No.1, Mumbai allowed the application directing the intervenor to be added as co-defendant. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred Misc. Appeal No.1782 of 2007 before the D.R.A.T., Mumbai. The learned D.R.A.T. for the same reasons dismissed the appeal preferred against which the present petition. 4. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioners before this Court that in proceedings before D.R.T. it is only the parties to the Agreement and/or guarantors that can be added as parties. As D.R.T. is a Tribunal constituted to determine the disputes between financial institutions and borrowers and guarantors no party can intervene. If any party claims intervention on the ground that they are the owners of the property, that would be available at the stage when the property is sought to be sold based on the certificate which may be subsequently obtained. Thus such a party is not denied the opportunity of contesting the claim. 5. In the instant case the property is not a secured property meaning thereby there is no mortgage created by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.2. It is pointed out to us that one (-3-) of the reliefs in the proceedings is for creation of mortgage. That is for the Tribunal to decide. At any rate if the respondent No.1 is not a party to the proceedings the decree would not be binding on respondent No.1. 6. Apart from that we are informed that the decree which was obtained by Respondent No.1 against the petitioner in Appeal before this Court has been set aside. 7. A person can be added as a party only if such person is a necessary or a proper party to the proceedings. In respect of the proceedings between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner the respondent No.1 is not a necessary party or for that matter not even a proper party as the relief sought for by the petitioner can be granted without the presence of the respondent No.1. 8. Apart from that, as noted earlier, the D.R.T. is a creature of statute to consider the disputes between financial institutions and borrower. The respondent No.1 is neither a guarantor nor a borrower. 9. Therefore, the impugned orders of D.R.T. dated 15th June, 2007 and the order of D.R.A.T. dated 10th October, 2007 are set aside, being beyond (-4-) jurisdiction. We make it clear that if respondent No.1 has any right, disposal of this petition would not stand in the way of the respondent No.1 enforcing those rights if the respondent No.2 obtains a certificate against the petitioner in respect of that property or files a Civil Suit. 10. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)