191090005202022_2c79e17e11a9ba6f41b72a2dcac94a9a.pdf

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: 
KOLKATA
CAMP COURT AT DRT, VISAKHAPATNAM
Appeal No. 58 of 2023
(Arising out of OA.653 of 2017 in DRT, Visakhapatnam)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
11.08.2023
     Mr. Nadyala Satyanarayana   
..........Appellant
-Vrs-
    Bank of Baroda&Anr ..........Respondent
Mr. GVS Sree Ram Kumar,
Learned counsel for the Appellant
Vakalath not filed 
for the Respondent
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:
Heard the Ld. Counsel of the appellant and perused the record.  Despite 
notices, none present on behalf of respondent bank. 
Instant appeal has arisen against the order dt. 08.08.2022 passed by Ld.DRT 
Visakhapatnam in OA No. 653/2017 wherein prayer of the appellant demanding 
certain documents, was refused and OA was fixed for arguments.
Ld. Counsel of the appellant submitted that the impugned order is bad in 
law.  It is submitted that the appellant is the guarantor who had sought certain 
documents under Order XII Rule 8 CPC which are essential for proper 
appreciation of the evidence and required for adjudication of the matter.  
Perused the impugned order passed by the Ld.DRT, Visakhapatnam. As per 
the finding of the Ld.DRT, Visakhapatnam the report demanded by the OP 4 is not 
essential for the decision of the present OA and accordingly dismissed the memo. 
Admittedly the appellant is the guarantor of the loan taken by the borrower 
who is the Respondent No.2.  It is also not in dispute that the loan was taken in the 
year 2014 and OA was filed in the year 2017.  The appellant filed a memo on 
24.01.2020 after conclusion of the proceedings when the matter was listed for 
hearing of the arguments.  Objections were filed by the Respondent bank to that 
effect that the appellant herein has also preferred an appeal before Hon’ble High 
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in W.P NO. 3619/2019 decided on 
13.08.2019 by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court.  It is further submitted 
that neither in the written statement nor in the Writ Petition any plea regarding the 
documents allegedly being required by the appellant was taken.  It is further stated 

that the status of the appellant as the guarantor is not in dispute.  Accordingly just 
in order to linger on the proceedings, documents are being summoned.   
I have gone through the record. After hearing the Ld.Counsel of the 
appellant, I found that the order passed by the Ld. DRT, Visakhapatnam does not 
warrant for any interference.  
I have gone through the order passed by the  Hon’ble High Court in the W.P. 
No. 3619/2019 wherein a finding is recorded to the effect that if the appellant want 
to save his property,  he may participate in the E-auction.Although the issues in the 
Writ Petition was a little different but the fact remains that the matter was taken up 
to the Hon’ble High Court wherein no plea was taken by the appellant regarding 
any safeguards which should have taken by the bank at the stage of disbursement 
of the loan and have not been taken by the bank, which are prejudicial to the 
interest of the appellant/guarantor.  
Further even in the Written Statement no such plea is taken that any steps 
should have been taken by the Respondent bank which have not been taken.  
Record further shows that a memo was filed under Order XII Rule 8 CPC.  Order 
XII Rule 8 CPC reads as under
“Notice to produce documents shall be in Form No. 12 in Appendix C, with such 
variations as circumstances may require. An affidavit of the pleader, or his clerk, of the 
service of any notice to produce, and of the time when it was served, with a copy of the 
notice to produce, shall in all cases be sufficient evidence of the service of the notice, 
and of the time it was served”.
As far as Form No. 12 in Appendix “C” CPC is concerned it reads that 
‘court take notice that you are hereby required to produce and show to the court at 
the 1st hearing of the suit’.
As far as Sec22(b) of RDDBI Act  is concerned, the Ld. Counsel s

…