( 1 ) THIS application is made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned presiding Officer of the concerned Debt Re- covery Tribunal as on 25th January, 2000 under No. 16 therein. By such order, the presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tri- bunal rejected the application of the guar- antor about quantification of the loss oc- curred in respect of security when admit- tedly it was the custody of the Receiver ap- pointed at the instance of the Bank. The only point has been taken by the Tribunal that as because theft occurred in 1991 and the application made after 9 years, the applica- tion is nothing but attempt of dilatory tac- tics. Therefore, the same is to be dismissed. At the time of dismissal a question arose as to whether the learned counsel for the de- fendant is ready for peremptory hearing or not, which was answered in negative. How- ever, it has recorded that the defendant has declined to cross-examine the plaintiff-wit- ness, P. W. No. 1.

( 2 ) INITIALLY, an objection was put in by mr. Rajasekhar, learned counsel, appearing for the Bank saying that the application can- not be said to be maintainable in v