A.S. Bopanna, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 15-4-2015 passed on I.A. No. 267 of 2015 in O.A. No. 267 of 2013. By the said order, the Debt Recovery Tribunal ('the DRT' for short) has rejected the prayer of the petitioner herein seeking leave to cross-examine A.W. 1 who was examined on behalf of the first respondent-bank. It is in that view the petitioner is before this Court. The respondents have filed their objection statement to this petition. Among other contentions, the contention with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition has also been raised. However, considering the fact that such contention is being considered before a Full Bench of this Court which has not yet concluded, if the decision therein is awaited, there would be further delay in this matter. Hence, the said contention is not pressed seriously and the matter is argued on merits. Accordingly, the petition is taken up.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order passed by the DRT in seeking that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner herein to cross-examine A.W. 1 before the DRT has apart from referring to the facts based on which the cross-examination is being sought has also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2013 SC 58 : (2013) 4 SCC 465 : (2013) 2 SCC (L and S) 296 : 2012 AIR SCW 6177 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Mysore Pure Silks and Sarees Private Limited v. Union of India, 2010 KCCR 1881.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand, referring to the facts and circumstance of the case would contend that the reasons assigned seeking for cross-examination is not based on any documents relied on by the bank and not based on any statement made by P.W. 1 and therefore has referred to the order of the Tribunal to indicate that the same has been considered and thereafter the impugned order has been passed rejecting the application. The learned Counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and Others, AIR 2002 SC 1479 : (2002) 4 SCC 275, which has been taken note by the Tribunal and thereafter has arrived at the conclusion.

4. In the light of the above, having taken note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi High Court Bar Association, which has been referred to with specific reference made to para 23, there can be no dispute that ordinarily the cross-examination of the witness before the DRT is not permitted as it cannot be treated as routine matter or in the usual course. However, even if the said decision is kept in view, in appropriate cases, the cross-examination can be permitted by the Tribunal and such discretion vests with the Tribunal depending on the facts and circumstances of the case based on which such leave is sought. Hence, the cross-examination is not a total bar, but a right which is not available to a party as a matter of course, but could be permitted in appropriate cases.

5. In fact the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mysore Pure Silks and Sarees Private Limited, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has after referring to the case of Delhi High Court Bar Association has found it fit to permit cross-examination in the said case, based on the facts arising therein. In the decision in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court though was not considering a situation under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 wherein the DRT would be regulating the process has referred to several other decisions where such right of cross-examination is not available as a matter of course. However, even in that light, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion th