ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 19-3-2024 in Writ Petition No.3929/2024 by which the High Court rejected the Writ Petition filed by the appellant - herein and thereby affirmed the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 29-2-2024 in Interim Application No.614/2022 in Appeal (Diary) No.1208/2022.

4. The impugned order passed by the DRAT which was made subject matter of challenge before the High Court was one directing the appellant - herein to deposit a sum of Rs.125 Crore as a pre-deposit under Section 18 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the "SARFAESI" Act).

5. Heard Mr. C.U. Singh, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant.

6. We are inclined to dispose of this appeal by a short order as we have looked into something which goes to the root of the matter.

7. Para 5 of the impugned order reads thus:-

"We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at quite some length. We have also carefully perused the order passed by the DRAT. We find that the exact same argument canvassed before us by the Petitioner was also canvassed before the DRAT. The DRAT, in paragraph 13 of the impugned order, has prima facie come to the conclusion that the Petitioners had consented to the creation of the mortgage. We, after perusing the record, do not find that the said finding of the DRAT, is in any way, perverse which would require our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the said finding is prima facie finding and was given to determine whether any pre-deposit ought to be ordered before the Appeal filed by the Petitioner is entertained. Section 2(1)(f) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 defines the word "borrower" inter-alia to mean any person who has been granted financial assistance by any Bank or Financial Institution or who has given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge as security for the financial assistance granted by the said Bank or Financial Institution. From this definition, it is absolutely clear that a mortgagor, even though not being a guarantor or a principle borrower, would still be included in the definition of the word "borrower" as defined in Section 2(1)(f) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is keeping this definition in mind that the DRAT came to the conclusion that the Petitioner ought to be directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 125 crores as a pre-deposit for the Appeal to be entertained. This figure was arrived at because the sale notice indicates that the debt due is approximately Rs. 259 crores."

8. Prima facie, it appears that the High Court got enamoured by the finding recorded by the DRAT that the appellant - herein had consented to the creation of the mortgage.

9. Having looked into such finding, the High Court thereafter proceeded to consider the definition of the expression "borrower" as defined under Section 2 (1)(f) of the SARFAESI Act.

10. In the last, the High Court took the view that although the mortgager may not be a guarantor or a principal borrower, yet he would fall within the definition of the expression "borrower" as defined under Section 2 (1)(f) of the SARFAESI Act and, therefore, it is not open for him to argue that he is not liable to make a pre-deposit as envisaged under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

11. We take notice of the fact that the Securitisation application filed under S