IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO : 1360 of 2010 Between: State Bank of Hyderabad, Kushaiguda Branch, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad & Others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 1360 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) In this writ petition, the petitioner-State Bank of Hyderabad assails the correctness of the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad-1st respondent herein, dated 14.10.2009 in dismissing I.A.No.463 of 2009 in O.A.No.257 of 2004. In the O.A. filed by the petitioner-Bank, the impugned I.A. was filed to receive the certificate issued by the Branch Manager of the Bank as additional evidence and mark the same as Ex.A.24. The certificate which is sought to be received as additional evidence is enclosed as Ex.P.3 to the writ petition and it reads thus: “Certified that the above is a true copy of an entry/entries in the Bank Master Register/Book which is one of the ordinary books of the bank and that such entry/entries was/were made in the usual and ordinary course of business and that register/book(s) is/are still in the custody of the bank. Further certified that a print out of the entry/entries or a copy of the print out is from data stored in a Floppy, Disc, Tape or other electro-magnetic data storage device. Further certified that true copy of the entry/entries in the said register/book(s) was/were obtained by mechanical and electronic which in itself ensure the accuracy of the copy. Further certified that the true copy of the book from where it is prepared has been destroyed in the usual course of bank’s business, after the date of which the copy has been prepared.” In the absence of any particulars in the said certificate certifying any particular entries for the specific period and in relation to which account number it was issued by the Bank and the particulars of concerned registers, no useful purpose would be served even if the said certificate is marked as additional evidence. The impugned order so passed by the first respondent-Tribunal is purely a discretionary order and no illegality is discernable with the said order warranting exercise of certiorari jurisdiction by this Court. The writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) _________________ (NOUSHAD ALI, J.) JANUARY 29, 2010 TSR