Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Rule. Since a short point is involved, with the consent of the parties rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned advocate for respondents waive service.

2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are challenging the common order passed by the learned Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai in Misc. Appeal No.127 of 2010 and Misc.Appeal No.128 of 2010. The petitioners before us are the original appellants in this appeal whereas the respondents to this petition are the original respondents-applicants.

3. These appeals impugn the common order dated 19th May 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal – II, for short (DRT-II), Mumbai. By this order the DRT allowed the respondents application (Exhibit 188) for amendment in the cause title of the original Application No.89 of 2005 whereas the petitioners’ application for dismissal of this original application was rejected.

4. The respondents preferred the application Exhibit 188 for amendment to the title of the said OA on the ground that Oriental Bank of Commerce filed the above OA against the petitioners-original defendants, in the DRT at Mumbai for recovery of certain money together with further interest and for enforcement of the mortgaged/hypothecated securities as more particularly set out in the original application. The respondents contended that the said Oriental Bank of Commerce, pursuant to assignment agreement dated 27th June 2008 assigned all the financial assistance granted by the said bank to the petitioners/ original defendants together with all underlying security, interest and all its right title in favour of the first respondent – Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (for short Arcil). It was stated in the application for amendment that pursuant to this assignment agreement, Arcil is deemed to have acquired all rights, privileges, powers of the original applicant bank under existing contracts, arrangements, security documents etc. Such being the nature of the assignment, pending proceedings initiated by Oriental bank can be continued by Arcil. Relying upon the said agreement, the first respondent sought its impleadment and permission to amend the original application as per the schedule annexed to the Misc. Application (Exh. 188). This application was made on 28th November 2008.

5. From the record it appears that this application for amendment was allowed by an order dated 12th August 2009 passed by the DRT. However, the first respondent made another request for amendment on 22nd April 2010 and this time it contended that, that assignment in favour of Arcil is also as a sole Trustee. Therefore, leave be granted to mention that Arcil is acting in its capacity as sole Trustee of Arcil -SBPS-024-I Trust (for short Arcil Trust). It was prayed that no prejudice will be caused if Arcil is allowed to be added in the proceedings as sole Trustee in terms afore-stated.

6. The record further indicates that to the earlier application for amendment on 28th November 2008, no reply was filed on behalf of petitioners but to this further application, a reply came to be filed and it was contended that interim application is for the purpose of deleting the name of M/s.Oriental Bank and substituting the same by Arcil as sole concerned Trustee of Arcil Trust. Further it was contended that Arcil is not assignee of the alleged debts of the petitioners – defendants due to the Oriental Bank. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. It was contended that the alleged agreement dated 27th June 2008 referred to as the Assignment Agreement cannot be looked into as it is not registered as required under section 17 of the Registration Act. Further, it was contended that M/s.Arcil has deliberately made the application for purpose of substituting its name for and on behalf of Oriental Bank. It was contended that in the application it was urged that Ar