Seeking quashing of order dated 27.08.2014 in O.A. No. 184 of 2010, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the owner of land comprised in RS Plot No. 1076, Sub Plot No. 1076/C3, appertaining to Khata No. 97, Revenue Thana No. 202 at Ratu Road, Ranci. The petitioner entered into the agreement on 28.02.2004 with Vananchal Builders and Developers P. Ltd. for construction of multi storied building known as Leela Krishna Apartment. Under the agreement the petitioner became owner of 40% share in the project and she was allocated five flats in the first floor and three flats in the fourth floor. After the construction of the building, the petitioner was given possession of five flats in the first floor however, subsequently, it was found that flat no. 154 is in possession of one Sanjay Kumar. Similarly, all three flats on the 4th floor allocated to the petitioner were found in possession of different persons. The respondent no. 3Developer impersonating the petitioner got a forged power of attorney executed in his name and sold the flats of petitioner's allocation. The sale deeds have also been executed by the respondent-Developer in the name of his own wife-respondent no. 2. The bank officers knowingly and deliberately sanctioned loan, in connivance with respondent nos. 2 and 3 by accepting mortgage of the flats which under the development agreement are petitioner's allocation. After the petitioner was added a party in O.A. Case No. 184 of 2010, she filed an application seeking a direction upon the respondent no. 1 Bank to produce one Sri I. S. Bhattacharjee for his cross examination. However, the said application has been dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2014.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in order to expose the connivance between the bank officials and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 it is necessary to cross examine the said Sri I. S. Bhattacharjee who was the Chief Manager at the relevant time. The petitioner being an illiterate lady does not know the intricacies of law and taking benefit of the same the respondent no. 3 pledged the petitioner's allocation in the agreement to the respondent-Bank. It was the duty of the bank officials to examine authenticity and genuineness of the documents sought to be mortgaged.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent seriously objects to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that, the application filed by the petitioner was apparently frivolous.

6. From the perusal of the documents on record I find that the bank has filed the Original Application for recovery of sum of Rs. 17,58,076.00/. The claim of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the land on which the Leela Krishna Apartment was constructed in which she became owner of 8 flats. I find that the petitioner has been added as a party in O.A. Case No. 184 of 2010. Now, all that is required by the petitioner is to establish that she is the owner of the mortgaged properties and for that cross-examination of the bank official is absolutely not necessary. If the grievance of the petitioner is against the official of the respondent-Bank that they negligently or in collusion with respondent no. 3 accepted the properties belonging to the petitioner as mortgaged assets, the petitioner may have remedy in seeking compensation against the erring bank officials. However, in so far as issue in O.A. Case No. 184 of 2010 is concerned, I am of the opinion that application for the examination of the said I.S. Bhattacharjee has rightly been refused by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on erroneous ground that the petitioner is trying to delay the conclusion of the proceeding. From the impugned order I find that a categoric finding has been recorded by the Debts Recovery Tribunal that no case has been mad