MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, C. J.

( 1 ) IN these appeals, the order dated 22nd August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein is under challenge. The issue raised in these appeals being similar, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment and order.

( 2 ) THE issue that was raised before the learned Single Judge and also before this Court is with regard to exact and intended meaning of the word "borrower" as defined under Section 2 (f) read with Section 13 (2) of the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called 'the Act' ). By referring to the aforesaid provisions of the Act it was submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellants that the definition of the word 'borrower' and the meaning given thereto would not and cannot extend to include legal representatives of the original borrower inasmuch as the said expression relates only to the person who availed of the loan or who was guarantor for the loan and it does not extend to his heirs, successors or legal representatives. The respondents however took a plea before us and also be