ORDER :

The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in appeal No.1056/2006 dated 02.11.2011, this writ petition is filed.

2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that petitioner filed a dispute under Section 70 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act against respondent Nos.1 and 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,59,575/-together with interest at 18% and also for the cost of the case. It is stated that the respondent No.1 is a borrower and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the sureties. The respondent No.1 in all borrowed a sum of Rs.11,39,000/-from the petitioner society on different dates and respondent No.1 is over due the said loan amount. Respondent No.1 did not repay the loan amount. Hence, the petitioner as raised dispute under Section 70 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, before the respondent No.4. The fourth respondent by order dated 30.09.2000, partly allowed the dispute directing the petitioner to recover Rs.1,50,000/-with interest at the rate of 16% plus 3% interest from the date of dispute till the date of realization of the amount and directed the petitioner to recover the said amount by sale of movable and immovable properties of the respondents No.1 to 3 and also personal decree against all the respondents. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the fourth respondent filed an appeal in Appeal No.1056/2006 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner has filed an application under Regulation 35 of KAT Regulations read with Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure for production of additional documents. However, the KAT without considering the application filed by the petitioner for production of additional documents, proceeded to pass the impugned order. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order passed by the KAT, filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and learned H.C.G.P. for respondent No.4.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the KAT without considering the application for production of additional documents filed by the petitioner, proceeded to pass the impugned order which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He further submits that the KAT has not even referred the application. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the KAT after considering the entire material on record has passed the impugned order. The KAT has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. He further submits that even if the said documents are taken into consideration, the petitioner has no case. Hence, he submits to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused the records.

7. It is not in dispute that the respondents No.1 to 3 obtained a loan from the petitioner bank. The respondents No.1 to 3 did not repay the loan amount. The petitioner raised a dispute under section 70 of the Act before the fourth respondent. Fourth respondent after recording the evidence of the parties, allowed the dispute in part holding that the respondents No.1 to 3 have not availed any loan of Rs.11,39,000/-as claimed by the petitioner in the claim petition. It has held that the respondents have borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-on 22.07.2000. There is a dispute in regard to the quantum of loan advanced by the petitioner in favour of the respondents. During the pendency of the appeal before the KAT, the petitioner has filed an application for production of additional documents. The KAT without passing any order on the said application, passed the impugned order. I would like to place reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Narayan Vs. Shri Firdos and others reported in 2017 (3) KCCR 2190 wherein this Court held that without considering the application for production of additional documents, the Court cannot pass any final order.

8. In the present case, admittedly, the KA