The tribunal has the power to regulate its own procedure and is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, and the relevance of entries in books of account and the principles of natural justice were highlighted.

M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records of the order dated 03.12.2013 in M.A.No.118 of 2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

2. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, while passing the impugned order in M.A.No.118 of 2013, on 03.12.2013, had observed to the effect that 'It is seen that the respondent is the assignee of Barclays Bank and that it had already filed the assignment deed and that by inadvertence the page containing the details of the loan availed by the appellant had not been filed in the annexure and that the Ld. Presiding Officer has permitted the filing of the said page before the tribunal below. The applicant in the OA cannot be denied the opportunity to prove its case before the tribunal below and the order of the Ld. Presiding Officer allowing the filing of a page which had been left out by inadvertence has only ensured that the respondent is not denied its right to establish its case before the tribunal below more particularly when the appellant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice and such being the case this tribunal is driven to conclude that the order of the Tribunal below warrants no interference' and resultantly, allowed the Appeal.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 03.12.2013 in M.A.No.118 of 2013 is an illegal one and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the Respondent/Bank filed I.A.No.402 of 2013 by introducing a document, at a time when main O.A.No.161 of 2012 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Chennai was posted for 'Arguments'.

5. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, both the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and the Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Chennai had failed to take into account that the additional document filed by the Respondent/Bank is an unregistered document viz., assignment agreement and the same cannot be marked as an Exhibit in O.A.No.161 of 2012 as per Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 speaks of 'Procedure and powers of the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal' and in fact, both the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Chennai had failed to take into account of Order XIII Rule 1(1) of Civil Procedure Code.

7. The stand of the Writ Petitioner is that both the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Chennai had failed to consider that the Respondent/Bank filed the photocopy of additional document and in the said document, the signature of the Notary Advocate is not present and therefore, the document cannot be marked and hence, it is to be rejected.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal had accepted the submission of the Respondent/Bank that additional document was not filed due to inadvertence together with O.A.No.161 of 2012 and proof affidavit and consequently, allowed I.A.No.402 of 2013.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Order XIII Rule 1 speaks of 'original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues' and as such, the Tribunal was not right in permitting the Respondent/Bank to produce/file Additional document in I.A.No.402 of 2013.

10. In response, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank that the Assignment Deed consists of 20 pages detailing the terms of the 'Assignment' between the Barclays Bank, the Assignor and Phoenix ARC, the Assignee, and the Schedule contains 127 pages, with more than 25000 accounts. Further, although at the time of filing of the Original Appli