MOHANBHAI NARSINHBHAI CHAUDHARYversusDEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI AND ORS

                                   bipin prithiani
                                                                        1
                                                                                              15-wp-12903.26.doc

                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 12903 OF 2026

                                   Mohanbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary                    …     Petitioner
                                        Versus
                                   Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
                                   Mumbai & Ors.                                       …     Respondents
                                                                ******
                                   Mr. Prashant J. Pandit a/w Mr. Jay Pandit for Petitioner.
                                   Ms. Asha Bhuta a/w Ms. Priyanka Chaurasia i/by Bhuta &
             Digitally signed by
BIPIN        BIPIN DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER   PRITHIANI
PRITHIANI    Date: 2026.10.07


                                   Associates for Respondent No.2.
             18:08:20 +0530




                                                                ******
                                                           CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
                                                                      SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

                                                               DATE      : 7th OCTOBER 2026

                                   P.C. :

                                   .         Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Since advance copy
                                   was served upon contesting respondent No.2-bank, it is
                                   represented by Counsel.

                                   2.        The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is order
                                   dated 21st August 2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate
                                   Tribunal (DRAT), whereby reply affidavit of the respondent No.2-
                                   bank has been taken on record, subject to payment of costs of
                                   Rs.20,000/- to the Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association,
                                   Mumbai.

                                   3.        The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits
                                   that reply affidavit of the respondent-bank was sought to be placed
bipin prithiani
                                     2
                                                          15-wp-12903.26.doc

on record after delay of 366 days and the DRAT ought not to have
condoned delay in a mechanical manner in the impugned order.
Relying upon Rule 14 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
(Procedure) Rules, 1994 (DRAT Rules), it was asserted that the
reply affidavit ought to have been filed within one month from the
date of service of notice and the memorandum of appeal. It was
emphasized that the respondent-bank was put to notice and it
chose not to file reply within the aforesaid period of 30 days and
an attempt was made after delay of 366 days to file the reply
affidavit. This was strongly opposed by the petitioner and yet, in a
most casual and cavalier manner, the DRAT proceeded to allow
the respondent-bank to place its reply affidavit on record, subject
to payment of costs.

4.        It is submitted that the aforesaid approach of the DRAT is in
the teeth of the settled position of law.

5.        Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the respondent No.2-bank, we are of the opinion
that once the DRAT has taken a view in the matter and permitted
the respondent No.2-bank to file its reply affidavit, subject to
payment of costs, which costs admittedly have been paid, as a
Court exercising writ jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order.

6.        The only consequence of the impugned order is that the
reply affidavit of the respondent No.2-bank has come on record in
the appeal proceedings. The drastic consequence of reply affidavit
bipin prithiani
                                     3
                                                       15-wp-12903.26.doc

not being on record would be that the claims made by the
petitioner, who is the appellant before the DRAT, would go
uncontroverted. In other words, all that the petitioner faces, as a
consequence of the impugned order, is a contest on merits before
the DRAT. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Hence, we
decline to exercise writ jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.

7.        The writ petition is dismissed.

8.        The DRAT is directed to decide the pending appeal
expeditiously.

9.        It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the matter and all rights and contentions
of the parties on merits are kept open.



  (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                 (MANISH PITALE, J.)