IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 15797 of 2008 Between: Sri Pramod Kumar Agarwal S/o.Changmal AGarwal R/o.12-5-41/7,Vidyanagar colony Siddipet-501013, Medak District ..... PETITIONER AND The Branch Manager,Indian Bank,Surabhi Arcade Bank Street, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to MA.No.163 of 2007 dismissed by the Hon`ble Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, vide orders dated 23.1.2008 confirming the orders passed in IA.No.352 of 2007 in OA.No.957 of 1999 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and after perusal of the same be pleased to quash the impugned orders and consequentially direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad to summon the then Chief Manager,Mr.Satyanarayana Murthy as the witness in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MILIND G GOKHALE Counsel for the Respondent: MR.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.15797 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) The petitioner is questioning the order, dated 24.07.2007, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissing IA.No.352 of 2007 in O.A.No.957 of 1999. The said order of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, vide order dated 23.01.2008 in M.A.No.163 of 2007. Both the said orders are questioned, in this writ petition, by the petitioner on the ground that the application to summon Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, Retired Chief Manager, ought to have been allowed as prayed for in I.A.No.352 of 2007. We have heard both sides. The facts of the case show that in O.A.957 of 1999, the evidence on behalf of the respondent Bank was let in by examining PW.1. The petitioner herein, defendant No.2 in the said O.A., however, did not cross-examine PW.1 and, ultimately, his right to cross-examine was forfeited. Subsequently, the petitioner herein has examined DW.1 and DW.2 and thereafter he has filed the present application to summon Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, Retired Chief Manager, for giving evidence in the said O.A. on the ground that the said Officer, who worked as Assistant Manager (Accounts), Senior Manager and Chief Manager in the respondent Bank during the relevant period, dealt with the loan transaction in the said capacities and he was responsible for the loss caused to the Company. The respondent Bank resisted the said application on the ground that the said Officer had retired long back and his whereabouts are not known and that on behalf of the respondent Bank, PW.1 was already examined, who has spoken to on the basis of the records. The respondent Bank, therefore, contended that the present application is moved only to drag on the proceedings. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, in its order dated 24.07.2007, found that the application of the petitioner was totally misconceived and it amounts to compelling the Bank to examine its retired Officer, at the instance of the petitioner. It is also noticed that the petitioner has not cross-examined PW.1 in spite of opportunities and in view of the fact that the said witness retired long back and his whereabouts are not known, the said Officer would not be examined, against the wishes of the respondent Bank, at the instance of the petitioner. After dismissal of the said application, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. It was reiterated by the petitioner before the appellate Tribunal that the said Officer i.e., Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy has dealt with the grant of loan and subsequent dealings and, as such, his evidence is necessary. The appellate Tribunal, however, felt that proving the case of the Bank is the burden on the Bank itself and it is not for the petitioner to summon a particular Officer of the Bank with regard to the transactions in question. The appellate Tribunal also felt that the petitioner has filed the said application only to drag on the proceedings and accordingly dismissed the said appeal with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Questioning the orders dated 24.07.2007 and 23.01.2008 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal respectively, the present writ petition is filed. We are not able to appreciate any substantial ground in support of the petitioner’s claim that the said application i.e., IA.No.352 of 2007 in O.A.No.957 of 1999 deserves to be allowed. As rightly found by the Debt Recovery Tribunal also, the Bank cannot be compelled to examine its particular Officer, especially, when the Bank has already examined PW.1, marked its documents and thereafter defendants’ evidence was also progressed beyond DW.1 and DW.2 and the matter is reported to be posted for arguments. The orders impugned, therefore, do not suffer from any error whatsoever and as such do not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 19.03.2009 v v