D.H. Waghela, J.

1. The appellants have preferred this appeal from order dated 24.07.2014 of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.58039/2013, whereby the appellants' challenge to order dated 25.11.2013 in petitioner's interim application No.3685/2013 in O.A.No.239/2011 pending before DRT, Bengaluru, has been spurned. The short interim order which was under challenge before learned Single Judge read as under:

"2. Having heard Sri. R.L. Patil, learned senior counsel and perused Rule 12(6) of the RDDBFI (Procedure) Rules, 1993 and regard being had to the admitted fact that petitioner, a party defendant in O.A.239/2011 did not file an affidavit by way of evidence, but filed IA No.3685/2013 to permit cross-examination of AW-1, the witness for the Bank, no exception can be taken to the rejection of that application."

2. While dismissing the petition, learned Single Judge has clearly observed in the operative part of the order as under:

"3. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to file the affidavit of evidence before the DRT and thereafter wards, if so desirable, file an application to permit cross-examination of the witnesses for the Bank, which, if made, there is no reason to believe that DRT would not consider the same in accordance with law, petition is accordingly rejected."

3. There is no dispute about the fact that, while appearing as defendant in the original proceeding, the appellant has not filed any affidavit and directly made the application for cross-examination of the witness of the applicant -bank. It was vehemently argued for the appellant that, it was the basic right of a party to cross-examine a witness, in the interest of justice and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the relevant part of Rule 12 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 specifically provides as under:-

"12. - (6) The Tribunal may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts shall be proved by affidavit, or that the affidavit of any witness shall be read at the hearing, on such conditions as the Tribunal thinks reasonable:

Provided that after filing of the affidavits by the respective parties where it appears to the Tribunal that either the applicant or the defendant desires the production of a witness for cross examination and that such witness can be produced and it is necessary to do so, the Tribunal shall for sufficient reasons to be recorded, order the witness to be present for cross examination, and in the event of the witness not appearing for cross examination, then, the affidavit shall not be taken into evidence and further that no oral evidence other than that given in this proviso will be permitted."

4. Learned counsel specifically submitted that, if the appellants were required to file affidavit on behalf of the appellant, it would disclose their defence and a party cannot be forced to file an affidavit, even as the appellant has admittedly filed their reply in terms of Rule 12(1) of the Rules. He relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ([2013]4 SCC 465), wherein it is observed, in the context of salutary principles of natural justice, that the rules of natural justice require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing such opportunity to cross-examine witnesses would violate the principles of natural justice.

5. It is trite that principles of natural justice apply when no specific procedure is prescribed and express provisions of law can override the principles of natural justice; and the principles of natural justice may in fact be restricted by necessary implication, by specific legislative provision in that behalf. In the facts of the