ORDER
Pratibha Upasani, Chairperson
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants, being aggrieved by the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Murnbai on Exhibit No. 60 in Original Application No. 1723/1999. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the respondent Bank praying for taking on record statement of account, which earlier was not filed by them, albeit with costs to be given to the appellants herein.
Few facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows:
It appears that in the original application filed by the Bank, the defendants had made an application directing the applicant Bank to file statement of account in compliance to the statement made by the Bank before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Misc. Appeal No. 186 of 2002. It appears that at that time the Bank took stand that statement of account filed along with Exhibit 30 was the statement of account in compliance of that order. Therefore, when, subsequently, the Bank came out with statement of account of its own, at much belated stage, Advocate for the defendants objected to the said statement of account being taken on record. According to the defendants, this conduct of the Bank amounted to reversal of their stand. The applicant Bank’s explanation was that initially there was some lapse on the part of the Bank but the statement of account, which was sought to be produced had become available only recently and the reasons for the same were given in para 5 of their present application. It was stated that accounts were maintained in software system called ‘Micro Banker’ and whenever the client was given loan facilities, the customers were asked to open Current Account which was linked to the loan account and the statement of unpaid interest was not available.
2. After hearing both the sides and after considering the explanation given by the Bank, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the Bank to produce the statement of account by his reasoned order, which is impugned before me. The learned Presiding Officer allowed the same with costs of Rs. 10, 000/- to the defendants to be paid by the Bank and further directed the defendants to file their additional written statement and reply to the statement of account. He observed that ordinarily when a party did not produce documents when asked by the other side then it was not to be allowed to produce the same subsequently, but that it was not inflexible rule, when the Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is guided the principles of natural justice rather than the formal rules of procedure. He further observed that lapse on the part of Bank officer should not desentitle the Bank from legitimately producing the legal evidence. He further observed that by allowing the Bank to produce the statement of account, no substantial prejudice would cause to the defendants and whatever prejudice might be caused, that would be taken care of by allowing the defendants to file written statement and reply to the statement of account. Observing this, we allowed the application of Bank with costs of Rs. 10, 000/- which the Bank was required to pay to the defendants.
In my view, the impugned order is indeed in consonance with the principles of natural justice, which is a guiding star for Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals. Furthermore, rules of procedure cannot be allowed to take precedence over substantial justice. The learned Presiding Officer has passed sort of strictures on the conduct of the Bank but has all the same allowed their application saddling with costs of Rs. 10, 000/-. Keeping in mind, the principles of natural justice, the defendants also are not prejudiced inasmuch as they are directed to file their written statement and reply to the statement of account so that opportunity of meeting the applicant’s case is made available to them. Under these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or error in the impugned order. No interference is therefore called for. Hence, following order is passed:
ORDER
Misc. Appeal No. 271/2003 is dismissed.