FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3110 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad dated 30th March, 2009 below Exh.165 rejecting the petitioner’s application praying for permission to cross-examine the affiants of Defendant No.4 for bringing on record the truth by exercising the statutory right which inheres to them. The said decision was carried in appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai being Misc. Appeal No.86/2009, which appeal has been dismissed while reiterating the opinion of the tribunal. The tribunal, amongst others, has taken view that the application taken out by the petitioner herein was belated one. Besides, on merits, the tribunal has found as a fact that there was no pleadings and no specific reference to the documents in the pleadings and for that reason, the petitioner could not be permitted to cross- examine the affiants of defendant No.4 and put that case to the said affiants which is not specifically pleaded. Besides, the tribunal has found that the case pleaded by the affiants of defendant No.4 will have to be proved by the said defendant No.4 and the documents, on which the petitioner intends to rely upon, cannot be relevant to examine such case. 3 We are in agreement with the stand taken on behalf of the respondents that in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should be slow in interfering with the interlocutory order passed by the tribunal, which is confirmed by the appellate Tribunal and more so, in the fact situation of the present case, considering the finding of fact recorded by the tribunal, which would be binding on this Court. In so far as the finding of fact is concerned, we find that no specific grievance has been made in the writ petition that the finding of fact recorded by the tribunal is either an error apparent on the face of record or perverse. In absence of such challenge the question of overturning the finding of fact recorded by the tribunal does not arise. As a matter of fact, we suggested to the petitioner that the appropriate course for the petitioner would be to raise all contentions available to the petitioner, which arise for consideration in the present petition and from the decision of the tribunal, which is impugned before this Court, if necessary in the appeal to be filed against the substantive final order to be passed by the tribunal, in the event the same was adverse to the petitioner. Nonetheless, the Counsel for the petitioner insisted that this Court should examine the grievance of the petitioner and in support of his submission, he placed emphasis on the decision of this Court in the case of Sonu Textiles & ors vs. Punjab National Bank, reported in 2008(2) Mh.L.J. 218 and invited our attention to paragraph 19 of the said decision. For the reasons already recorded, the exposition in this decision will be of no avail to the petitioner. 4 In the circumstances, in our opinion, the limited grievance that needs to be addressed in this petition in the context of the relief claimed by the petitioner below Exh.165 is devoid of merits. Hence, petition is dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J) 10.03.2010. PLK/*