IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 06^th day of May, 2025 PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON RA 6/2019 (Arising out of OA 135/2010 on the file of DRT - II, Chennai)

Between 1. J. Raji, W/o. N.Janarthanam, 2. N.Janarthanam, S/o.Natarajan, Both are residing at:

No.30, Tarachand Main Road, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 092. ...Appellants And

1. M/s.Citi Bank N.A., Tower Victory, No.45, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, 600 017.

2. M/s.Axis Bank Limited, 2^nd Floor, No.31 South Mada Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

(Amended as per order dated 01.03.2024 in IA 170/2024 in place of R1) …..Respondents Counsel for Appellants : Mr. S.Sukumar Counsel for respondent 2 : Mr. S.Arunachalam

ORDER

1. This appeal is filed under Section 20 of RDB Act challenging the final order passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT - II, Chennai in OA 135/2010 dated 05.06.2018.

2. The respondent bank filed OA 135/2010 for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,66,035.60p lent towards housing loan facility together with pendent lite interest @ 18% per annum from appellants. After contest, this OA was allowed. Challenging the order of allowing the OA, this appeal is filed by the respondents below.

3. From the pleadings and the submissions made before the DRT and before this Tribunal, it is not in dispute that the appellants availed the loan facility and executed loan documents including the creation of mortgage. Ld. Counsel for appellants challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that after filing of OA and before the disposal of OA, appellants had made several payments to the tune of Rs.22,46,430/-. It is the submission of Ld. Counsel for appellants that for the loan amount of Rs.16,55,000/-, appellants made a payment of Rs.30,70,900/-. In fact, appellants made a payment of Rs.4,62,498/- in excess of the amount recoverable from appellants. Appellants made an attempt to file proof affidavit along with audit statement with regard to these payments before the DRT. That was returned on the ground that the chance for filing Counter Proof Affidavit was closed on 02.05.2018 and therefore, the Counter Proof Affidavit along with memo cannot be accepted. Ld. Counsel produced the said CPA along with memo and audit statement, which has the seal of DRT – II, Chennai dated 14.05.2018. Without giving an opportunity to the appellants to produce CPA and evidence in support of the payments made, the Ld. Presiding Officer chose to close the opportunity and recorded that CPA was not filed and no document was marked from the side of defendants and passed the impugned order. Ld. Counsel further submitted that IA 178/2023 for receiving the following additional documents, has been filed in this appeal.

4. As per the claim made in the OA which was filed on 16.06.2010, the respondent bank claimed a sum of Rs.18,66,035.60p with pendent lite interest @ 18% per annum till the date of realization. Therefore, the amount determined by the respondent bank was Rs.18,66,035.60p. As per the statement of account given by the bank which is produced in Pg. Nos. 1 to 14 of the additional typeset, the amount paid and received by the bank from 25.06.2010 was not considered by the DRT for determining the amount due from the appellants. As per this account statement, appellants made a total payment of Rs.26,28,814/- directly to the bank. As per the order of this Tribunal, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was deposited on the file of DRT – II in fixed deposit on 05.10.2017 and it is still available with the Registry, DRT – II, Chennai. Thus a total sum of Rs.30,28,814/- was paid. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for appellants submits that the order passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, without considering these payments cannot be sustained and Ld. Counsel prays for consideration of