R.M. Borde, J.— Heard respective counsel appearing for both the parties.

2. Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken-up for final decision at admission stage.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 31.5.2017 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, below Exhibit 111 in the Recovery Proceedings No.187/2005, allowing the Application, presented by Respondent No.1 bank, requesting to put the petitioner No.3 in civil prison. The Appeal presented by the petitioner to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has been rejected by the learned Presiding Officer by order dated 21.9.2007. The petitioners, herein, preferred an Appeal bearing No.346/2007, which has also been dismissed by the Chair Person, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) on 3.2.2016. Applications presented, seeking recall of the order by the petitioners, have also been rejected by the DRAT on 14.3.2016.

4. In the Application presented by respondent No.1 bank, it is stated that, the bank has obtained three separate Recovery Certificates against the debtors, petitioners herein, authorizing the recovery of more than Rs.200 crores. The Recovery Officer directed the petitioner