1. Guarantor sought cross-examination of bank witness after three-year delay in OA proceedings. (Para 2 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 746
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson
Mulaparti Mangaraju – Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda – Respondent
Misc. Appl. Dy. No. 902 of 2026
Important Points
Cross-examination of a witness cannot be granted in a routine manner, especially when the application is filed after a significant delay without specific grounds and where the evidence on affidavit has not been disputed.
Subject
Banking - Debt Recovery
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure - Cross-examination of Witness - Application filed after significant delay - Where an application for cross-examination is moved after a lapse of three years without specific grounds or explanation for the delay, and where the evidence on affidavit remains undisputed, such a request cannot be allowed as a matter of routine. (Para 6, 7)
(B) Procedural Law - Delay and Diligence - Conduct of Parties - Applications filed simply to linger proceedings or as delaying tactics are liable to be dismissed in the absence of merit or specific grounds for such requests. (Para 5, 6)
Issues: Whether the application for cross-examination of the bank witness, filed after a delay of three years without specific grounds, should be allowed.
(B) Procedural Law - Delay and Diligence - Conduct of Parties - Applications filed simply to linger proceedings or as delaying tactics are liable to be dismissed in the absence of merit or specific grounds for such requests. (Para 5, 6)
Issues: Whether the application for cross-examination of the bank witness, filed after a delay of three years without specific grounds, should be allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Roopesh Kr. Reddy
For the Respondents: Dipanjan Dutta, Subhajit Chowdhury
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Roopesh Kr. Reddy
For the Respondents: Dipanjan Dutta, Subhajit Chowdhury
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claimed gross irregularities by bank; bank argued delay and lack of grounds for cross-examination. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. No reason given for three-year delay; application appeared to be delaying tactics. (Para 7 )
4. Cross-examination of bank officers requires specific grounds; cannot be allowed routinely after unexplained delay. (Para 7 )
5. When can cross-examination of a bank witness be denied in debt recovery proceedings?
Cross-examination can be denied if the application is filed after an unexplained delay and without specific grounds, as it may be a delaying tactic. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 18.05.2026 passed by learned DRT- Visakhapatnam in I.A. No. 1197 of 2026 arising out of O.A. No. 288 of 2020 [Bank of Baroda Vs. Sri Mulaparti Mangaraju & Ors] whereby learned DRT dismissed the I.A. 1197 of 2026.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the order appellants preferred the instant appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that there are gross irregularities and blunder mistakes committed by the bank resulting substantial loss of the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that appellants are entitled to cross-examine the bank witness.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for bank opposed the prayer and submits that it is simply a delaying tactics on the part of the appellants. Witness was examined on 20.10.2023. No specific ground is taken for filing the application after three years seeking cross-examination by defendant no.2. Even no written statement was filed by the defendant no.2 rather adopted the written statement filed by the defendant no.1. Application was moved after three years of filing affidavit on evidence.
6. O.A. was filed by the secured creditor bank against the defendants wherein defendant no.2 is a guarantor. Written statement was filed by defendant no.1, borrower, which was adopted by defendant no.2 before the learned DRT. Documents executed by the defendants, which were adduced by secured creditor in the O.A., was not disputed by defendant no.2 in the written statement. Written statement was filed by defendant no.1 in August, 2023. After lapse of about three years, I.A. was filed seeking cross examination of witness, which was dismissed by the learned DRT holding that defendants filed the application simply for lingering the O.A. proceedings.
7. As far as issue of cross-examination is concerned, factually appellants moved the application before learned DRT after lapse of about three years without giving any reason for the delay. Although it is true that bank officers can be cross-examined, but there should be some ground. It cannot be done in a routine manner. Evidence adduced by the bank on affidavit, which was on record after examination of documents, has not been disputed by the appellants. Simple ground is taken that gross irregularities and mistakes committed by the bank for which cross-examination is required.
We do not find any reason to allow cross-examination. In absence of any specific ground, cross-examination of witness cannot be allowed. In such circumstances, appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
O R D E R
Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. All pending I.A.s are also disposed of. Costs easy.
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.
Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of September, 2026.
