Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, C.J. :- 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 before the learned single Judge that the said expression as used in Section 2(f) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act would also include not only the person who originally took the loan but also his legal representatives and heirs as the aforesaid debt liability would pass on to the legal representatives /heirs as liability gets devolved on them.

3. One Smt. Parvati Devi, amongst others, stood as guarantor for the financial assistance to the extent of Rs. 65 lacs taken by ROM Industries Limited from the respondent-Bank of India. Smt. Parvati Devi also created an equitable mortgage in respect of her immovable property situated at 16/73 Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi for repayment of the amount taken as loan. It is well known that banks while granting loan ask for mortgage of an immovable property to safeguard themselves and reduce their risk. In October, 1996 the account of ROM Industries was declared a non-performing asset by the respondent-bank. On 19th August, 2000 Smt. Parvati Devi passed away leaving behind Girdhari Lal Gupta ad Asha Singla as her legal heirs. Unfortunately Girdhari Lal Gupta also passed away on 2nd May, 2004. Kamal Gupta and Rajan Gupta are the legal heirs of late Girdhari Lal Gupta. The residual interest in the mortgage property passed on to the hands of the legal representatives of late Smt. Parvati Devi.

4. In November, 2003, Bank of India filed a recovery application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in respect of the aforesaid loan. Though Parvati Devi had expired when the recovery application was filed, she was made a party in the said proceeding. On an amendment sought by the bank, her legal representatives namely, Girdhari Lal Gupta and Asha Singla were substituted in her place. Later, on the death of Girdhari Lal Gupta, his legal representatives Kamal Gupta and Rajan Gupta were also substituted and brought on record.

5. On 5th October, 2005 the respondent-bank issued notices under Section 13(2) of the Act against Asha Singla, Kamal Gupta and Rajan Gupta in their capacity as legal representatives of Smt. Parvati Devi.

6. The said notice was under challenge before the learned single Judge by filing three separate writ petitions, which were dismissed

by the learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 22nd August, 2007 holding that under the definition clause Section 2(f) the terms 'borrower' would mean the principal borrower and after his death, his/her legal representatives. It was further held that it cannot be argued that the word 'borrower' excludes legal representatives and legal heirs. Aggrieved by the said order, these three appeals have been filed on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7. In order to decide and adjudicate the contentions raised before us it is necessary to examine the language