Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 27th May 2006 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as D.R.A.T.) in M.A. No: 194 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the order dated 15th September 2005 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as D.R.T.) in I.A. No: 60 of 2005 in O.A. No: 1525 of 2001 was confirmed and the application of the petitioners to set aside the said order and to allow the petitioners to cross examine the bank witnesses was rejected. 2. It appears that the second respondent is the principle borrower who took the loan from the first respondent – UCO Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). The borrower having not repaid the loan amount with interest, bank filed an application for recovery of a sum of Rs.70,91,343/- before the D.R.T. which is registered as O.A. No: 1525 of 2001. The case was set exparte against the borrower (second respondent herein) and two Directors of the borrower. 3. Petitioners have been impleaded as defendants 4 to 9 and shown as the guarantors. They appeared to have disputed the claim on the ground that they are not guarantors and that they have not mortgaged their property (mortgaged property in question) in favour of the bank and at the instance of the borrower. However, they accepted that the mortgaged document bears their signature. 4. Bank produced certain witnesses who were examined by the bank. The petitioners who are defendants 4 to 9 requested permission to cross examine the bank witnesses. But, their request was rejected by the D.R.T. by its order dated 15th September 2005. The Tribunal noticed that the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for compromise. But no compromise could be arrived. The case was set exparte against the principle borrower. But it appears that earlier the Tribunal, vide its order dated 22nd June 2003, directed to pay 25% of the compromised amount (Rs.15,00,000/- approximately) but, only a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs was paid. In such background, vide order dated 31st December 2003, an application preferred by the bank was allowed and the tenants were directed to pay the rent directly to the applicant bank. In such background, vide order dated 31st December 2003, an application preferred by the bank was allowed and the tenants were directed to pay the rent directly to the applicant bank. So far as the application for cross examination of the bank witnesses is concerned, having noticed that the matter was not compromised before the Lok Adalat, the Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the affidavit was vague and there was no substantial ground mentioned to cross examine the bank witnesses. By referring to a Supreme Court decision reported in 2002 (2) Bank C.L.R. 272 (SC) [Union of India vs. Delhi High Court Bar Association and another], the Tribunal refused to exercise its jurisdiction by its order dated 15th September 2005. This order was confirmed by the appellate Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank submitted that the petitioners, who are defendants 4 to 9, have already admitted that they had executed the mortgaged document, it bears their signature and therefore, the guarantors should not ask permission to cross examine the bank witnesses. 6. We have perused the writ petition, seen the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the petitioners, who are defendants 4 to 9, have already disputed the fact that they are guarantors. They have also disputed the fact that the mortgage deed was executed by them. In fact, they have disputed their total liability. So far as their signature in the mortgaged document is concerned, the following statement has been made at paragraph 8 of their written statement: "8. These defendants submit that taking advantage of the faith reposed by these defendants over their Kariyasthar the defendants 2 and 3 with an intention to defraud these defendants obtained signatures in blank forms while these defendants were actively engaged in the leather trade. These defendants are having family business of leather and textiles only and they belong to Urugu muslims residing at 41, Potters Street, Begumpur, Dindigul, and whereas the defendants 1 to 3 are Keralits doing different business altogether and they have got no connection whatsoever by playing fraud through the Kariyasthar of these defendants, the defendants 2 and 3 with the active connivance of the Plaintiff bank officers have forged and fabricated the documents." 7. As from the aforesaid statement it appears that the petitions have alleged connivance of bank officer with the borrower and when they have disputed the fact that the mortgaged document was executed by them, the matter requires determination atleast by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and thereby it is required to determine whether the petitioners are the guarantors or not and whether their property was mortgaged. For determination of such issues, it is necessary to look into the statement of the bank witnesses and for that purpose, it is also necessary to allow the petitioners to cross examine such witnesses. We are of the opinion that the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal should have allowed the petitioners prayer for cross examination of the bank witnesses instead of prolonging the matter by contesting cases in one Court or the other. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated 15th September 2005 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, in I.A. No: 60 of 2005 in O.A. No: 1525 of 2001 and the order dated 27th May 2006 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in M.A. No: 194 of 2005 and remand the case to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, with a direction to allow the petitioners to cross examine the bank witnesses. The parties are directed to co-operate with the Tribunal and shall not ask for unnecessary adjournments. The Debts Recovery Tribunal is expected to decide the O.A. on merits on an early date. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there shall be no orders as to the costs.