Defendants retain the right to cross-examine witnesses despite forfeiture of the right to file written statements, affirming the importance of procedural fairness.

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON Miscellaneous Appeal No.32/2025 (Arising out of orders in I.A.3042/24,3043/24 & 3044/24 in O.A.702/2019)

1. M/s Neelam Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietor N.Ghanshyam Chanakya R/o B-5, Anchillary, Bhanur Mandal, Patancheru, Medak-502305.

2. S/o N.B. Chanakya, Aged 51 years,Occ:business, R/o G2, Plot No.887, HMT, Swarnapuri colony, Miyapur, Hyderabad-500 040. … Appellants -Versus-

Bank of India Rep. by its authorized Officer Having its head office at Star House, C-5, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai &

Branch amongst other places at Madhapur branch, Plot No.38, D.No.1-98/11/3, Next to Amantran Hotel, Arunodaya Colony, Madhapur, Serilingampally, Hyderabad …. Respondent For the Appellants : Sri V.Ravinder, Ld.Advocate For Respondent : Sri M.Md.Rafiq, Ld.Advocate JUDGEMENT : On 23^rd June, 2025 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The instant appeal is arising out of the impugned judgement and order dt.05.03.2025 passed by Ld.DRT-II, Hyderabad in O.A.702/2019 filed by Bank of India whereby I.A.3042/24 to reopen the evidence of AW-1 for the purpose of cross examination, I.A.3043/24 to recall AW-1 and I.A.3044/24 to permit the petitioners i.e. defendants to cross examine AW-1, are dismissed by the Ld.DRT- II, Hyderabad on the ground that right to file their written statement has already been forfeited. Hence the defendants have no right to cross examine the Bank witnesses.

Feeling aggrieved, the Appellants preferred the appeal.

Ld. Counsel for the Appellants would submit that although, the order forfeiting the right to file written statement was challenged by the Appellants/defendants, but the same was declined by the Ld.DRT-II, Hyderabad. The appeal before DRAT, Kolkata was also dismissed and the Writ Petition No.22920/2024 against the order of the DRAT, Kolkata was also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. However, it is submitted that the Appellants have right to cross examine the bank witness Reliance is placed upon the judgments of Apex Court in Kanchhu Vs.Prakash Chand & others in Civil Appeal No.5319/25 and as well as Nanda Dulal Pradhan &

Anr. Vs. Dibakar Pradhan & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.4151/2022.

Per contra, Ld.Counsel for the Respondent Bank submits that the O.A. was filed in the year 2019 wherein the defendants/Appellants put in appearance after three years and thereafter, their right to file written statement was forfeited. Now, they cannot cross examine the Bank witness as their right to file written statement has already been closed.

As may appear from the records vide order dt.28.10.2022, right to file written statement by the defendants was forfeited by the Ld.DRT-II, Hyderabad. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dt.28.10.2022, Misc.Appeal Dy.No.546/2024 was filed by the Appellants before DRAT, Kolkata which was dismissed at admission stage vide judgment and order dt.11.07.2024.

Against the judgment of DRAT, Kolkata, Writ Petition No.22920/2024 was filed by the Appellants before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 22.08.2024. Thereafter, the Appellants filed three I.A.s, 3042/24,3043/24 & 3044/24 seeking permission to cross examine the Bank witnesses.

No doubt, when the right to file written statement was forfeited, still the defendants have a right to proceed further in the O.A. and to defend their own rights as has been held by the Apex Court in Kanchhu Vs.Prakash Chand &

others & Ors (supra), wherein it is held that “the limited right that the defendant, set exparte, would have is confined to cross–examining the plaintiff’s witnesses. The effort has to be directed towards demonstrating that they are not speaking the