S.B. Deshmukh, J.—Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. The challenge made in this writ petition is to the power, authority and quantification of the costs imposed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Mumbai. The facts, in brief, relevant for resolution of the controversy are that the respondent No.1 Bank had filed Special C.S. No.472 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. Nagpur for recovery of Rs. 25,34,543.57 against the respondent No.2 and the present petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was defendant No. 1 in the said civil suit. The present petitioner was defendant No. 2 in the suit. Petitioner, after service of summons and entering into appearance had filed Written Statement somewhere on 19.11.1996. In the Written Statement present petitioner has stated that the respondent No. I was carrying on business in the name and style of

M/s. Karuna Traders and had raised Cash Credit Limit from the respondent No.1 Bank. He, amongst other pleas. denied the knowledge of terms and conditions of the said Cash Credit Limit granted in favour of the respondent No.1. After framing of issues, said suit came to be transferred initially to the Debt Recovery