WP(C) 317/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The respondent Bank is represented by Mr. PC Goswami, learned counsel. The petitioner, who had taken loan from the Purbanchal Bank Limited (subsequentl y merged with Central Bank of India), has approached this Court to challenge the judgment dated 4.6.2008 in Appeal No. 50/03 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tri bunal at Kolkata, which upheld the earlier judgment of 27.9.02 in Original Appli cation No. 48/1997 rendered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati. By t he original order, on the basis of evidence adduced, the Tribunal held that an a mount of Rs.19,21,236.55 was due from the defendants(petitioners) and accordingl y a certificate was issued for realization of the said amount with interest. The Appellate Tribunal on consideration of the Appeal of the petitioners found t hat the amount of Rs.14,30,000/-, claimed to have been paid by the petitioner du ring the period of moratorium, was not found established and having noted the r easoning recorded by the DRT, found no merit in the Appeal and accordingly the s ame was dismissed. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the payment made by the loane e on 22.3.1990 sought to be proved through a pay-in-slip (Exhibit-D-1) was not t aken into account by the DRT. The learned counsel further submits that original cash book and vouchers were also not made available for perusal of the DRT. However, Mr. PC Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the Bank refers to the di scussions made by the DRT in paragraph-7 of the judgment dealing with this speci fic plea of the petitioners. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record concluded that the loanee had failed to prove the deposit of Rs.14,30 ,000/-. Witnesses were produced in this regard in support of the Bank’s contenti on. The cash book of the relevant date was also examined and it was found that n o such transaction as claimed by the defendants has taken place on 22.3.1990 and it was the specific case of the Bank that as there was no transaction there was no question of production of voucher, as claimed by the petitioners. The DRT also noted that there was discrepancy in the seal and signature in the c ounterfoil of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank Limited produced by the petitioners and in fact the Cashier present on duty on that particular date have also testif ied that no such deposit was made on 22.3.1990. On an elaborate consideration of the evidence available, the contention raised b y the petitioners was rejected by the learned Tribunal and the Appellate Authori ty after considering the same arguments advanced by the petitioners, have also s ustained the view taken by the DRT and the Appeal of the petitioners was dismiss ed. Having seen that these very arguments of the petitioners was duly considered by the DRT and the DRT’s conclusion has since been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal and considering the concurrent finding of facts reached by both the Tribunals, I see no justification to disturb the said finding, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petiion is dismissed. After the dismissal order was dictated in open Court, the learned counsel for th e petitioner submits that since the payable amount with interest is not a small amount, he may be granted 4 months time to make the entire payment. Mr. PC Goswa mi, learned counsel for the Bank submits that the petitioners may file an applic ation before the Recovery Officer, DRT, who may consider such application of the judgment debtor. In view of above, notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition, only for e nabling the judgment debtor to make the payment within a reasonable period, I de em it appropriate to permit the petitioners to furnish undertaking before the Re covery Officer, DRT to make the entire payment on or before 30.4.2011. If such a n undertaking is furnished by 20.12.2010, the Recovery Officer may consider symp athetically the prayer of the judgment debtor to make the due payment within the next 4 months. Amount already deposited before the DRT may be adjusted. Mr. Gos wami undertakes that until 20.12.201, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners, to recover the Bank’s dues. The case is disposed of accordingly.