1. This Misc. Appeal has been filed by defendant No. 6 in O.A. No.84/2000 pending before DRT, Chandigarh against order dated 4.7.2001 passed by DRT, Chandigarh. The impugned order has dealt with other matters as well but this appeal relates to only that part of the order which was passed on appellant's application for permission to cross-examine the witnesses of the applicant Bank, a copy of which is at page 95 of the Paper Book.
2. The impugned order relating to the aforesaid application of the appellant may be reproduced as under : "After hearing Counsels for the parties at length and after going through the material on record, I am of the opinion, whether defendants may be permitted to cross examine the witnesses or not, it can only be decided at the time of final arguments. At this stage, there does not appear any ambiguity in the statement of witnesses vis-a-vis filed by applicant Bank which require clarification by putting the witnesses to cross-examination.
However, after completion of the pleadings, at the time of final arguments, if just decision requires any witness, may be summoned for cross-examination, application is accordingly decided." 3. From the above, it is apparent that the prayer of the appellant of the Bank has not been finally rejected and the matter has been kept open for a stage after completion of the pleadings. At that stage if the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below comes to a conclusion that for just decision of the case there appears a requirement to summon the witnesses of the Bank for cross-examination, the same may be so directed.
4. From the impugned order, it is to be found that the appellant had moved an application for interrogatories and for direction of the appellant Bank to make discovery on oath of the documents in its possession and that application was allowed and the Bank was directed to reply the interrogatories within four weeks and file the documents which were mentioned in their O.A. and were relevant for the just decision of the case.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant informs this Appellate Tribunal that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal below has not so far been complied with by the Bank. Therefore, it is in the interest of the appellant itself that the request for cross-examination of witnesses be made before the Tribunal below only after the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal below to the Bank is complied with. At that stage only, learned Tribunal below would be in a position to form an opinion whether cross examination of the witnesses of the Bank would be necessary or not.
6. The application of the appellant for cross examination of the witnesses moved before the Tribunal below is, in my opinion, not complete. Even the names of the witnesses sought to be cross examined have not been given and it has not been averred in that application as to on what points cross examination was needed. Para 3 of the application only says that Bank had not filed certain documents which, if filed, would have shown that the transactions reflected in the statement of accounts were bogus. Such an averment was only argumentative.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, in my opinion also, no stage has yet come where a decision may be taken whether the witnesses of the Bank would be required for cross-examination or not. That stage will come only after the Bank complies with the orders of the Tribunal below relating to interrogatories and production of documents.
8. Since the learned Tribunal below has already kept the question open the appellant should approach the Tribunal below first.
9. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is dismissed in limine.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to the appellant.