191090000982019_dfcd253d16d7e283cfa7c53e234d4141.pdf

1
     IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
 Appeal No. 71 of 2022
(Arising out of IA No. 122 of 2008 in O.A. no. 71 of 2007 – DRT- 
Visakhapatnam)
          
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
19.04.2024
Punjab 
National 
Bank 
having 
office at Plot No.4, Dwarka Sector 
– 10, new Delhi – 110075 and 
Branch Office at Station Road, 
Guntur, PIN 522003. 
                  … Appellant
              -Vs-
1. Tejvangir Dhanrajgir, residing at
19, 
Dhanraj 
Mahal, 
CSM 
Marg, 
Mumbai – 400001. 
…….Respondent
2. 
M/s. 
Sri 
Vishnu 
Trading 
Corporation, residing at Door No. 
23-6-52, Upstairs, Sriram Bhavan, 
Patnam Bazar, Guntur 522003. 
3. 
Dadavarthi 
Nageshwar 
Rao, 
residing 
at 
Door 
No. 
24-54, 
Velagachettuvari 
Street, 
R. 
Agraharam, Guntur – 522003.  
4. 
Smt. 
Meena 
Laxmi 
Chand,
residing at H. No. 14-2-332/A, Gyan 
Bagh 
Colony, 
Goshamahal, 
Hyderabad – 500012. 
…  Proforma Respondents
For Appellant :
Ms. Aparajita Rao, Learned Advocate.
 
For Respondent :
 
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard learned counsel for the appellant bank, who filed the 
O.A. before the learned DRT wherein an I.A. 122 of 2008 was 

2
filed by the defendant, who is respondent no.1 herein, and 
perused the records. 
2.
Instant 
appeal 
has 
arisen 
against 
the 
order 
dated 
24.12.2018 passed by learned DRT- Visakhapatnam in I.A. No. 
122 of 2008 arising out of O.A. No. 71 of 2007 wherein an 
application for impleadment of parties filed by the respondent 
no.1, Tejvangir Dhanrajgir, was allowed by the learned DRT.  
Feeling aggrieved, secured creditor bank preferred this appeal.   
3.
It appears from the pleadings of the parties that O.A. was 
filed by the secured creditor bank against the borrower and the 
guarantors, who are defendant no. 2 to 4 before the learned DRT.  
Pending proceeding, an application being I.A. 122 of 2008 was 
filed by the defendant no.1 in the O.A. for impleadment with the 
assertion that secured asset was never mortgaged by the 
defendants and they are not the owner of the secured asset.  
Accordingly, they may be impleaded as respondents in the O.A. 
proceeding.  Learned DRT recorded a finding that it is to be 
decided whether the petitioner are to be impleaded in the 
proceedings 
for 
submitting 
their 
written 
arguments 
and 
documents or not to enable this Tribunal to decide whether said 
property was mortgaged or not.  Accordingly, I.A. was allowed. 
4.
As far as right of respondents are concerned that would be 
decided by the learned DRT in the O.A. proceedings, but the 
same can only be done when impleadment of respondents in the 
O.A. proceedings are allowed, as defendants in the O.A. claimed 

3
that they are not the owner of the property and never mortgaged 
the same as secured asset in favour of the bank. Accordingly, I 
do not find any illegality in the impugned order.  Appeal lacks 
merit and is liable to be dismissed.  
O R D E R
5.
Appeal is dismissed. Impugned order dated 24.12.2018 
passed by learned DRT- Visakhapatnam is confirmed. No costs.
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the order be supplied to the appellant and the 
respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT. 
Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the 
Tribunal’s website. 
Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open 
Court on this the 19  day of April, 2024.  
                                                     
       (Anil Kumar Srivastava,J)               
    Chairperson 
Dated: 19.04.2024
09/pkb