IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2193 of 2005 Between: Smt. N. Kanakadurga, W/o. Laxmi Naryana, R/o. B-25, 2-2-18/31/D-1, D.D.Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Registrar/Arbitrator, The Chairminar Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 2 The Charminar Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Purani Haveli, Hyerabad. 3 M/s. Varven Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd., rep. by Venugopal, S/o. Narasimha, Flat No. 603, Swapna Lok Somplex, S.D.Road, Secundrabad. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 08-10-2004 passed in I.A.No.968 of 2004 in CTA No.194 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) at Hyderabad. Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents. The short question, which arises for consideration in this writ petition, is whether the Tribunal is justiﬁed in rejecting the application of the petitioner for summoning three documents on the ground that they have no relevance to the issues raised in the appeal filed by the petitioner. The admitted facts are that the petitioner, as a partner in M/s Paramount International Corporation, borrowed certain amounts from respondent No.2-Cooperative Bank. The arbitrator passed an award against her. The said award was questioned by the petitioner in CTA No.194 of 2003 before the Tribunal. In the said appeal, she ﬁled I.A.No.968 of 2004 seeking summoning of the following three documents. (1) Board resolution dated 24-01-1998 and sanction letter when loan was ﬁrst sanctioned by the Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Limited (Sr.No.4) (2) Stock statement and valuation report of the bank assets as mentioned in the application (Sr.Nos.5 & 7) (3) Letter of guarantee dated 03-11-1998 given by M/s Varven Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited by taking over the liability. By a detailed order, the Tribunal dismissed the said application. While rejecting the petitioner’s application, the Tribunal reasoned that the three documents even if summoned may only reveal the internal dispute regarding the liability to repay the loan amount between the petitioner and respondent No.3 and that there being no dispute regarding the execution of the documents by the petitioner for availing the loan from the bank, the documents which are sought to be summoned have no relevancy. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the main contentions raised by the petitioner is that respondent No.3 in collusion with the oﬃcials of respondent No.2 played fraud on the petitioner and that in order to establish the said plea of the petitioner, the said documents have relevancy. Under Rule 15(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994, where a party desires that a witness to be examined by the Tribunal in appeal or cause production of documents for additional evidence, he may apply to the Presiding Oﬃcer through an aﬃdavit for summoning the persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce documents and the Secretary shall issue summon in Form E to the party or his counsel for service on the person concerned, after the Presiding Oﬃcer passes an order on the aﬃdavit filed. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that it has delved into the merits of the claim of the petitioner regarding the documents in respect of which the application is ﬁled. When an application is ﬁled seeking the summoning of documents, the Tribunal is entitled to consider its relevancy and it is not necessary for the Tribunal to probe further into the nature of the documents and the consequences that may ﬂow ultimately. From the nature of the documents, which the petitioner requested the Tribunal to summon, considered in the light of the stand taken by her that fraud is played by respondent No.3 in collusion with the oﬃcials of the Bank, it cannot be said that they have no relevance at all. The rigid stand adopted by the Tribunal had only resulted in prolongation of the appeal pending before it for more than three years as a result of the petitioner ﬁling the present writ petition and persuading this Court to grant stay. Such an approach on the part of the Tribunal would only lead to multiplication of proceedings and pendency of the cases before it. If a liberal approach is made by the Tribunal in matters of this nature, it would tend to quicker disposal of the cases. As the order of the Tribunal in rejecting the petitioner’s application for summoning of the documents suﬀers from a patent illegality, the same is quashed. Respondent No.2 shall produce the above mentioned three documents before the Tribunal, within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. The Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal, within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 27th August, 2008 vrn