MARKANDEYA KATJU, CJ.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

( 2 ) BY means of this petition petitioner challenged the impugned order of the Debt recovery Appellate Tribunal in Misc. Appeal No. 329/2002.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case are that OA No. 07/1995 was filed by the Respondent Bank before the DRT, New Delhi, in respect of a certain loan. Written statement was filed before the DRT by the petitioner (respondent therein) alleging non- compliance of Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993.

( 4 ) RULE 9 states as follows:-"9: Documents to accompany the application (1) Every application shall be accompanied by a paper book containing:- (i)statement showing details of the debt due from a defendant and the circumstances under which such a debt has become due; (ii)all documents relied upon by the applicant and those mentioned in the application; (iii)details of the crossed demand draft or crossed Indian Postal Order representing the application fee; (iv)the documents referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be neatly typed in double space on one side of the paper, duly attested by a senior officer of the bank, or financial institution, as the case may be, and numbered accordingly. (v)Where the parties to the suit or proceedings are being represented by an agent, documents authorizing him to act as such agent shall also be appended to the application: provided that where an application is filed by legal practitioner it shall be accompanied by a duly executed Vakalatnama. "

( 5 ) THE Tribunal vide order dated 27. 09. 1995 framed the following three preliminary issues:-"1. Whether the application has been filed as per the rules and the Act. 2. Whether the proper court fee has been paid as per the rules and the act. 3. Whether OA can be entertained without filing the statement of account and the documents"

( 6 ) AFTER hearing the counsels for the parties, the Tribunal vide order dated 26. 2. 1996 disposed off these issues vide Annexure A/3 to the Writ Petition.

( 7 ) IT is alleged that by order dated 26. 2. 1996, the Tribunal decided the first two preliminary issues whereas the third preliminary issue was not decided. The tribunal in the concluding paragraph of its order observed:-"so far as the question of Statement of Accounts and documents are concerned, the necessary documents on which the appellant relies has already been filed. However, the applicant Bank is directed to supply the Statement of Accounts to the defendants. "

( 8 ) IT is alleged that despite the above direction, statement of Accounts and other documents relied on by the bank were not supplied to the petitioner.

( 9 ) SINCE the issue by non-compliance of Rule 9 was not adjudicated upon, petitioner moved a misc. application dated 26. 2. 1998 praying for deciding the preliminary issue. Copy of the application is Annexure A/4.

( 10 ) THEREAFTER by Order dated 21. 04. 1999 vide Annexure A/8, the Tribunal observed:-"in view of this, I direct the Banks/financial institutions, if they choose so, to make Interim Application showing cause for non-compliance of Rule 9 and also file documents along with IA, the interim application shall be decided/considered on its merits. Applicant banks/financial institutions to give appropriate application, if they choose so. Ten days time is granted to applicant banks/financial institutions to move an interim application, falling which OA shall stand dismissed. In the event, applications are filed, the same shall be considered on merits. Objection of learned Counsel for defendants are decided accordingly. "

( 11 ) IT is alleged that even thereafter the bank chose not to file any application disclosing its reasons for not filing statement of accounts and other documents with the OA and also for not supplying copy thereof to the defendants. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application dated 12. 05. 1999 praying for dismissal of the OA, as the ba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document