Writ Petition No. 7805 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
1 Reserved on : 07.04.2025 Pronounced on : 29.04.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.7805 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) C/W WRIT PETITION No.13495 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) IN WRIT PETITION No.7805 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI B.A.VARADARAJACHAR S/O ANJANEYACHAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 45 BANASWADI MAIN ROAD KRISHNARAJAPURAM ROAD BENGALURU – 560 043. (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . M/S. RELIANCE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER ... PETITIONER 2 THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS A TRUSTEE OF THE RELIANCE ARC 010 TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. RAJESH SURESH BICHITKAR HAVING ITS OFFICE AT RELIANCE CENTER NORTH WING, 6TH FLOOR, OFF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, SANTACRUZ EAST MUMBAI – 400 055. 2 . M/S. SUJAN PRECISION COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 158, 6TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN BOMMASANDRA INDL. AREA BENGALURU - 560 099 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI B.S. PADMANABHACHAR. 3 . SRI B.S.PADMANABHACHAR S/O SRINIVASACHAR B., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 2 KALARAVA PARISARA 19TH CROSS, KASHI MUTT ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055. 4 . SMT. BHARATHI PADMANABHACHAR W/O B.S.PADMANABHACHAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 2 3 KALARAVA PARISARA 19TH CROSS, KASHI MUTT ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055. 5 . SRI M.THAMBI DORAL S/O LATE MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.826, 2ND FLOOR 8TH 'E' MAIN, 2ND CROSS HRBR LAYOUT I BLOCK KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 043. 6 . SMT. SHANTHI VERI D/O LATE P.MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT C/O DR. VISHVESHWARAIAH ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL LINGSUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT – 584 122.
Legal Reasoning
before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.13473 of 2024. The Division Bench would dispose of the petition on 27-01-2025 by directing expeditious conclusion of pending proceedings. The petitioner then files an applications in 12 I.A.Nos.418 and 419 of 2025 seeking production of additional documents and for summoning of the handwriting expert who had submitted his report, for cross-examination. I.A.No.419 of 2025 is rejected by an order dated 10-03-2025, which forms the challenge in Writ Petition No.7805 of 2025. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Madhukar Deshpande would vehemently contend that the petitioner had registered a complaint. The complaint was against fraudulent actions committed by the Bank and its officials. The complaint is investigated into by the CCB. The CCB has filed a charge sheet with the finding that the documents were in fact forged. This finding is based upon forensic report of those documents. The handwriting expert to whom the documents were sent has opined that the documents are forged. The forensic report is taken on record. To examine the veracity of the report and confirm the same, an application is preferred by the petitioner. That comes to be rejected. Earlier to the aforesaid application, two applications were preferred by the petitioner seeking permission to cross-examine AW-1 and recalling of the order which rejected the 13 permission to cross-examine AW-1. Therefore, three applications are rejected by the Tribunal. It is his submission that in view of the charge sheet so filed by the CCB and the trial pending, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the application seeking permission to cross-examine AW-1 and the handwriting expert, an officer of M/s Truth Labs for cross-examination. He would submit that orders be set aside and permission be granted owing to the peculiarity in the facts of the case. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the 1st respondent would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that it is the petitioner who preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against dismissal of the application seeking stay of further proceedings and the matter reaching the Division Bench of this Court. If the petitioner wants any relief of this kind, he could have sought the same before the Division Bench. But, there was not even a whisper before the Division Bench that two applications are pending. If permission has not been sought to re-agitate those two applications before the Division Bench, it cannot be sought before this Court is the submission of the learned counsel for the 14 respondent. He would submit that filing of charge sheet against Bank officials is altogether a different matter and that cannot be used by the petitioner to get away with the loan liability. The loan as on today is close to ₹200/- crores. He would, therefore, submit that petitions be dismissed and the Tribunal be directed to expedite O.A.No.173 of 2015 filed by the respondent/Company. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 10. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of events are not in dispute. The first application preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal was seeking stay of further proceedings on two circumstances, one charge sheet in C.C.No.28420 of 2018 is pending adjudication and the other, O.S.No.688 of 2019 is also pending adjudication. The declaratory reliefs that are sought by the petitioner before the civil Court are as follows: 15 “(a) Declare that documents mentioned in the suit schedule ‘B’ written hereunder are void and illegal. (b) Declare that the Plaintiff is discharged from the guarantee and surety provided by him to the defendant No.1 Bank for the repayment of the loan granted to the defendant No.3 and the suit ‘A’ Schedule Property is not available as a security for the repayment of the loan availed by the Defendant No.3 from Defendant No.1 Bank. (c) Issue permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 and 2 from taking any coercive action against the Plaintiff. (d) Issue permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 and 2 from alienating the suit schedule property.” This suit had been dismissed. This Court restored it in R.F.A.No.421 of 2020 in terms of its order dated 15-02-2022. It reads as follows: “…. …. …. 55. A division bench of this Court in the case of R. Gopalakrishna Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation and Another reported in ILR 2008 Kar. 2034. In the instant case, the civil court proceeded to dismiss the suit as not maintainable on coming to a conclusion that no documents were produced by the plaintiff to substantiate its allegations against defendant no.1. It also erroneously held that there were no allegations of fraud made against officials of defendant no.1 - Bank and no charge sheet was filed against them. These findings could only be given after trial. When there is no embargo on civil court to record evidence on preliminary issue, dismissal of suit on concluding that plaintiff did not produce material in support of his allegation would be wholly unsustainable. At the same time, calling upon plaintiff to lead evidence to substantiate allegations of fraud would go a long way in weeding out frivolous cases and save banking institutions from lengthy trial. Such a measure would further interest of justice by balancing interests of both parties. 16 56. In view of the above, point for consideration is answered in the negative. I.A. No.4 shall be deemed to have been rejected on merits. Hence, I pass the following: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Arguments
7 . SRI M.PRABHU DORAI S/O LATE P.MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT C/O DR. VISHVESHWARAIAH ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL LINGSUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT – 584 122. 8 . SRI ANNA DORAI S/O LATE P.MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT C/O DR. VISHVESHWARAIAH ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL LINGSUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT – 584 122. 9 . MRS. DIVYA HARISH W/O E.HARISH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.45, BANASAWADI MAIN ROAD KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 043. (BY SRI VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1) ... RESPONDENTS 4 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 10.03.2025 PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1 BANGALORE ON I.A.NO. 419 OF 2025 IN O.A NO. 173/2015 (ANNX-A). IN WRIT PETITION No.13495 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI B.A.VARADARAJACHAR S/O ANJANEYACHAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.45 BANASWADI MAIN ROAD KRISHNARAJAPURAM ROAD BENGALURU – 560 043. (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . M/S. RELIANCE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS A TRUSTEE OF THE RELIANCE ARC 010 TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. RAJESH SURESH BICHITKAR ... PETITIONER 5 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT RELIANCE CENTER NORTH WING, 6TH FLOOR, OFF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, SANTACRUZ, EAST MUMBAI - 400 055. 2 . M/S. SUJAN PRECISION COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.158, 6TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN BOMMASANDRA INDL. AREA BENGALURU - 560 099 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI B.S.PADMANABHACHAR. 3 . SRI B.S.PADMANABHACHAR S/O SRINIVASACHAR B., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2, KALARAVA PARISARA 19TH CROSS, KASHI MUTT ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055. 4 . SMT. BHARATHI PADMANABHACHAR W/O B.S.PADMANABHACHAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2, KALARAVA PARISARA 19TH CROSS, KASHI MUTT ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055. 5 . SRI M.THAMBI DORAI S/O LATE MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 6 R/AT NO. 826, 2ND FLOOR 8TH ‘E’ MAIN, 2ND CROSS HRBR LAYOUT, I BLOCK KALYANANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 043. 6 . SMT. SHANTHI VERI D/O LATE P.MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT C/O DR. VISHVESHWARAIAH ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, LINGSUR RAICHUR DISTRICT – 584 122. 7 . SRI M.PRABHU DORAI S/O LATE P.MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT C/O DR. VISHVESHWARAIAH ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, LINGSUR RAICHUR DISTRICT – 584 122. 8 . SRI ANNA DORAI S/O LATE P.MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT C/O DR. VISHVESHWARAIAH ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, LINGSUR RAICHUR DISTRICT – 584 122. 9 . MRS. DIVYA HARISH W/O E.HARISH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.45, BANASAWADI MAIN ROAD KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 043. (BY SRI VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R9 IS DISPENSED WITH ... RESPONDENTS 7 VIDE ORDER DATED 23-07-2024) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 09.05.2024 PASSED IN IA NO. 2147 OF 2023 AND IA NO. 2166/2023 IN O.A.NO. 173 OF 2015 VIDE ANNEXURE -A AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE AS WELL AS PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CROSS EXAMINE AW1 AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER Both these petitions are between the same parties calling in question different orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Karnataka at Bangalore (‘the Tribunal’ for short). 2. In Writ Petition No.13495 of 2024, an order dated 9-05- 2024 passed by the Tribunal, rejecting I.A.No.2147 of 2023 and I.A.No.2166 of 2023 in O.A.No.173 of 2015 is called in question. 8 Applications were preferred seeking permission to cross-examine AW-1 and recalling of an earlier order and permission to lead evidence. In Writ Petition No.7805 of 2025 an order dated 10-03-2025 is called in question rejecting I.A.No.419 of 2025 in O.A.No.173 of 2015 seeking to summon the handwriting expert for cross-examination. Since both these petitions arise out of interlocutory orders passed in O.A.No.173 of 2015, they are taken up together and considered in this order. 3. Heard Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- One M/s Srujan Precision Components Private Limited approaches Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited (‘the Bank’ for short) for grant of loan. Between 23-09-2010 and 29-09-2010 credit limits of ₹13 crores and ₹30/- crores were separately sanctioned. All was well for few years. The loan then becomes sticky and the Bank 9 initiates proceedings invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). It filed an application in O.A.No.173 of 2015 against the petitioner, the guarantor and the borrower. The proceedings have gone on since then. On 30-03- 2015 Lakshmi Vilas Bank assigns the asset in favour of M/s Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (‘the Company’ for short), the present 1st respondent. The petitioner has instituted certain proceedings against the Bank; the first one was a complaint before the jurisdictional Police alleging that the Bank and its officials and the borrowers have played fraud by forging the signatures of the petitioner and creating a liability on him. The complaint is investigated into by the City Crime Branch (Fraud and Misuse Force) and a charge sheet is filed in C.C.No.28420 of 2018. The said proceeding is pending consideration before the 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. Next proceeding is instituted by the petitioner by filing original suit in O.S.No.688 of 2019 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore seeking certain declaratory reliefs, which is also pending adjudication. 10 5. In the original application instituted by the Bank in O.A.No.173 of 2015 before the Tribunal, the petitioner files his written statement contending that the Bank, its officers, employees all of them have played fraud on the petitioner by fabricating the documents and forging his signatures. Out of these proceedings, the suit instituted by the petitioner in O.S.No.688 of 2019 before the City Civil Court comes to be rejected. The petitioner prefers a regular first appeal before this Court in R.F.A.No.421 of 2020, which comes to be allowed by remitting the matter back to the civil Court by restoring O.S.No.688 of 2019. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner files an application in I.A.No.724 of 2022 seeking stay of further proceedings in the light of restoration of suit in O.S.No.688 of 2019. On 22-08-2022, it is averred, that the application filed by the petitioner was reserved for orders. On 30-09-2022, the Tribunal does not pass any order, but the matter was adjourned without indicating any specific date for pronouncement of order on I.A.No.724 of 2022 which was filed seeking stay of further proceedings before the Tribunal. 11 6. Ten months thereafter i.e., on 20-06-2023, the Tribunal is said to have dismissed the application seeking stay of further proceedings. The petitioner then seeks time to lead evidence, as he was contemplating to challenge the order dated 20-06-2023. This is accepted and the matter is adjourned to 29-09-2023. The petitioner then files two more applications before the Tribunal, one for recalling the order dated 29-09-2023 and seeking permission to cross-examine applicant witness (AW). By order dated 09-05-2024 those applications seeking to lead evidence and cross-examine the applicant witness come to be rejected, the rejection of which forms the challenge in Writ Petition No.13495 of 2024. Against the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the applications so filed by the petitioner, two in number, the petitioner approaches the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (‘Appellate Tribunal’ for short) in Miscellaneous Appeal No.40 of 2023. This comes to be dismissed by order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. This is called in question
Decision
ORDER Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 04.01.2020 passed by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set-aside. O.S.No.688/2019 is restored to file. in O.S.No.688/2019, Since plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 are represented before this Court, they shall appear before trial court without awaiting fresh summons, on 28.03.2022 and take further orders. Trial court shall issue fresh suit summons and notices to defendants no.3 to 6 and thereafter to dispose of suit in accordance with law after recording evidence, as directed above. 5. Parties to bear their respective costs.” The suit gets restored. Therefore, during pendency of two proceedings, the petitioner seeks stay of further proceedings before the Tribunal by filing application in I.A.No.724 of 2022. The Tribunal is said to have dismissed it after 10 months. The petitioner approaches the Appellate Tribunal against the said order. The Appellate Tribunal rejects the appeal affirming the order passed by the Tribunal. That becomes a challenge before the Division Bench of 17 this Court in Writ Petition No.13473 of 2024. The Division Bench dispose of the petition by the following order: “…. …. …. 3.10 All the above being said, we do not agree with the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings before the DRT on merits, should be interdicted till after the subject suit is tried & decided. A contra view would defeat the very idea of speedier recovery of outstanding public debts, as rightly contended by learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent-Company. Therefore, some via media admissible in law needs to be worked out. In our considered view, that can be done by permitting the DRT and the Civil Court to go on with the respective matters not being influenced by each other. However, the decree/order to be passed by the DRT shall be subject to decree to be entered in the pending suit, in the sense that if the decree goes in favour of the petitioner on the ground of fraud & fabrication, to that extent, no liability shall be fastened on the petitioner. We repeat that it is only to that extent, and for the rest the liability would not be disclosed. While making this arrangement, we have noted that the debt in question is secured by other properties as well and therefore, the proceedings before the DRT should not be interdicted. 3.11 The above arrangement would facilitate recovery of loan by executing the DRT's decree/order should it be in favour of the respondent, at least as against the properties other than the one comprised in the suit. If the suit is decided against the petitioner, then respondent can execute the DRT decree/order as against the suit property too. In the peculiar fact matrix of this case, this arrangement would balance the competing interests of parties. It is also consistent with what the Apex Court observed in BANK OF RAJASTHAN, supra, which is reproduced hereunder: "53. We certainly would not like that the process envisaged under the RDB Act be impeded in any manner by filing of a eparate suit if a defendant chooses to do so. A claim petition before the DRT has to proceed in a particular 18 manner and would so proceed. There can be no question of stay of those proceedings by way of a civil proceeding instituted by a defendant before the Civil Court. The suit would take its own course while a petition before the DRT would take its own course. We appreciate that this may be in the nature of parallel proceedings but then it is the defendant’s own option. We see no problem with the same as long as the objective of having expeditious disposal of the claim before the DRT under the RDB Act is not impeded by filing a civil suit. Thus, it is not open to a defendant, who may have taken recourse to the Civil Court, to seek a stay on the decision of the DRT awaiting the verdict of his suit before the Civil Court as it is a matter of his choice. 54. We thus make it abundantly clear that in case of such an option exercised by the defendant who filed an independent suit, whatever be the nature of reliefs, the claim petition under the RDB Act would continue to proceed expeditiously in terms of the procedure established therein to come to a conclusion whether a debt is due to a bank institution and whether a recovery and/or certificate ought to be issued in that behalf." financial In the above circumstances and with above observations, this writ petition is disposed off. Both the Civil Court and Debt Recovery Tribunal are requested to try & dispose off the subject cases within an outer limit of one year. All contentions of the parties are kept open.” The Division Bench requests both the Civil Court and Debt Recovery Tribunal to try and dispose of the cases within an outer limit of one year. All contentions of parties were kept open. There was no order passed regarding quashment of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal or otherwise. 19 11. The matter is again before the Tribunal. Before disposal of the writ petition by the Division Bench on 27-01-2025 there were two applications pending. Those applications were in I.A.Nos.2166 and 2147 of 2023. Those applications had been rejected and their rejection is challenged in Writ Petition No.13495 of 2024. Though the said petition was pending, neither of the parties – the Company or the petitioner – have chosen to divulge pendency of the said writ petition. When the matter comes up before the Tribunal, another application is filed in I.A.No.419 of 2025 seeking to examine handwriting expert. The reason for examination of handwriting expert is as follows: “…. …. …. 10. I state that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore has observed that both the civil Court and Debt Recovery Tribunal are requested to try and dispose off the subject cases within an outer limit of one year. Further, the Hon’ble High Court has observed that all contentions of the parties are kept open. In view of the same, the relevant documents were sent to the handwriting expert to examine the genuineness of my signatures appearing therein by comparing the same with the admitted signatures. M/s Truth Labs Forensic Services, has submitted a detailed report dated 12-02-2025 in this regard and the said report is sought to be produced in support of my case. I state that the said report reveals that my signatures were forged and documents were fabricated. As such the production and marking of the aforesaid report dated 12-02- 2025 is highly relevant in the light of the observations made by in the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore 20 W.P.No.13473 of 2024. The said report is absolutely necessary for proper adjudication of the above case. Hence the accompanying application. 11. I state that the Applicant Bank has perpetrated fraud against me and I have very good case on merits. I state that the denial of opportunity to produce the documents would cause substantial miscarriage of justice and cause irreparable injury to me. Hence, the accompanying application. 12. I state that great hardship and loss would be caused to me if the accompanying application is not allowed. On the contrary, no loss or injury will be caused to anyone if the same is allowed. Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the accompanying application in the interest of justice and equity.” The reason quoted in the application would clearly indicate that several documents were sent to the handwriting expert to examine genuineness of the signatures of the petitioner. The Truth Labs has submitted a detailed report which the petitioner avers that it was in support of his case. The report did disclose that signatures are forged and documents are fabricated. Objections are filed by the Company against the said application. This results in passing of an order by the Tribunal on the following reasons: “…. …. …. 7. The question now falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner/8th defendant has made out any good 21 reason to hold that the proof affidavit filed by AW-1 would not be sufficient and whether there is bona fide need for oral examination of AW-1. This Tribunal after going through the affidavit of AW-1 does not feel necessary that the applicant need to produce a witness for cross-examination by the petitioner/8th defendant, especially when she has not filed a written statement before this Tribunal. Her remedy lies elsewhere. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that the I.A. 449 of 2025 is liable to be dismissed. 8. IA. 448 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner on 19.02.2025 praying to recall the order dated ‘29-09-2023’ and to permit defendants 4 to 8 to adduce evidence in support of their case. I.A 487 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner on 05-03- 2025 praying to permit her to adduce evidence in this case. The petitioner is none other than the 8th defendant in the O.A. The proceedings dated 29-09-2023 reads as below: “Applicant Bank and D9 present. Defence evidence not filed. Place before the Hon’ble Presiding Officer on 11-10-2023.” 9. The petitioner/8th defendant has no case that there is any factual error in the minutes of the proceedings recorded on 29-09-2023. As already stated above there is no written statement filed by the petitioner/8th defendant before this Tribunal in this case in the eye of law. Despite seeking permission to adduce evidence, the petitioner/8th defendant has not filed any counter proof affidavit nor did she adduce any documentary evidence along with this petition. In spite of granting sufficient opportunity she did not adduce any evidence in support of her contentions. The Tribunal cannot wait at the desire of the petitioner. If the petitioner/8th defendant wants to adduce any evidence it is for her to do so in accordance with law and as per the procedure of this Tribunal. In the above circumstances, there is no need to recall the order dated 29-09- 2023. The prayer sought for in the I.A. 448 of 2025 is rejected accordingly. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.K. Rajendra Mohan v. Thirvamadi Rubber Co.Ltd. (reported in (2015) 9 SCC 326) has held that plaintiff’s plea based on an issue which is not referred to in the plaint and which lacks foundation in the plaint is not required to be entertained. The Hon’ble High Court of 22 Kerala in Thankamony v. Retnam Nadathy [reported in 2011 (1) KLT SN 90 (C.No.124)] has held that a party cannot give up the case set out in the pleadings and propound the new and different one on the basis of the evidence tendered in the case. Reliance can be placed for the proposition of advancement of arguments and adducing of evidence in the absence of pleadings also in the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Rosily Mathew v. Joseph [reported in 1986 KLT SN 62 at p.38]; Anitha v. Unnikrishnan [reported in 2013 (4) KLT SN 93 (C.No.92)] and Viswambaran v. Sanu [reported in 2018(2) KLT 947 (FB)] and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy [reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594] and Nandkishore Lal Bhai Mehta v. New Era Fabrics (P) Ltd. [reported in (2015) 9 SCC 755]. In view of such settled proposition of law, this Tribunal is not inclined to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner/8th defendant in I.A.487 of 2025 to permit her to adduce evidence without even pleadings.” The Tribunal relies on certain judgments of the Apex Court to hold that the proceedings before the Tribunal are summary in nature and strict proof of evidence as is necessary before the civil Court or a criminal Court would not be applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal and the matters are decided on the basis of affidavits. 12. A perusal at the order would indicate that all the judgments on which the Tribunal places reliance upon to reject the application would not become applicable to the facts of the case, as the facts obtaining in the subject case are unique. Unique in the sense would be that there is a charge sheet filed by the CCB against 23 the officials of the Bank on the complaint registered by the petitioner on fraud and forgery. The suit in which the afore-quoted relief is sought is pending adjudication and the handwriting expert to whom the documents were furnished for opinion has supposedly rendered an opinion in favour of the petitioner holding that the documents are forged. In the aforesaid circumstance, the Tribunal could not have, relying upon certain judgments which were inapplicable, rejected the application. The petitioner is now saddled with huge amount close to ₹200 crores. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not at all availed such funds. They are all created documents. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the Tribunal to consider the application so filed by the petitioner, one to recall the assignee witness AW-1 for further cross-examination and permit the handwriting expert to be examined or cross-examined as the case would be. 13. There can be no qualm about the principles so laid down by the Apex Court that proceedings before the Tribunal are summary in nature. Strict proof of evidence as is necessary before the criminal Court or civil Court is not a procedure contemplated in 24 law. But, in cases of this nature where there are prima facie copious material against the officials of the Bank and in favour of the petitioner, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the applications. Much hue and cry is made by the learned counsel for the respondent that permission could have been taken to file these applications before the Division Bench of this Court and not file the applications without seeking such permission. The said submission is noted only to be rejected, as all the contentions of both the parties were kept open by the Division Bench. Taking cue from the opportunity, the petitioner has preferred these applications. The applications were not meritless to be rejected summarily. In that view, the petitions deserve to succeed with the prayers that are sought by the petitioner being granted. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petitions are allowed. (ii) Orders (a) dated 09-05-2024 passed on I.A.Nos.2147 and 2166 of 2023 and (b) dated 10-03-2025 passed on 25 I.A.No.419 of 2025 both in O.A.No.173 of 2025 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Bengaluru stand quashed and those interlocutory applications stand allowed. (iii) The Tribunal shall regulate its procedure in accordance with law and dispose of O.A.173 of 2025, within an outer limit of one year. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:SS