Judgment : S. Rajeswaran, J. The defendants 3 to 6 in O.A.No.207 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai2, are the petitioners herein. O.A.No.207 of 2008 was filed by the Canara Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, against the petitioners and others, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,40,41,035.05 together with interest at 19.85% with 2% per annum overdue interest with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the original application till date of realisation. The petitioners herein, who were defendants 3 to 5 in the original application, filed their written statement before the Tribunal. Ultimately, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, passed a final order on 6.9.2012, directing all the defendants, including the petitioners herein, to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,41,035.05 together with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum with yearly rests from the date of filing of the original application till the date of realisation. 2. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment, secured properties would be sold. As against that, an appeal was preferred in A.I.R. No.959 of 2012 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, by the petitioners herein. Along with the appeal, an application in I.A.No.609 of 2013 was filed by the petitioners herein before the Appellate Authority, seeking directions to waive the pre-condition to deposit the debts under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the RDDB Act, 1993. The said petition, filed under Section 21 of the RDDB Act, 1993, was heard in detail and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order dated 3.1.2014, directed the petitioners herein to deposit a sum of Rs.2,34,71,519/-into the Appellate Tribunal, on or before 28.2.2014 being the 50% of the total amount due viz., Rs.4,69,43,037.90. As against that order, the petitioners herein have preferred this civil revision petition before this Court. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-Canara Bank. We have also gone through the documents made available on record and the counter affidavit of the first respondent-Canara Bank. 4. As against that order, the petitioners herein have preferred this civil revision petition before this Court. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-Canara Bank. We have also gone through the documents made available on record and the counter affidavit of the first respondent-Canara Bank. 4. The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners before this Court is that they were not the partners nor mortgagors of the firm viz., Jai Bhuvaneswari Fine Chemicals (P) Limited or the Directors of the Jai Bhuvaneswari Fine Chemicals (P) Limited and had not obtained any loan for the Private Limited Company, while denying their liability, he would add that the petitioners have not subscribed their signature in any of the loan forms. He adds that the petitioners have been unnecessarily added as parties before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and shown as defendants. Even though this fact was brought to the notice of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the Tribunal by its order, made the petitioners herein also liable for the debts due to the company itself. Further the counsel took us through the various documents to show that as early as 1970, they obtained term loan as partners of M/s.Murugesan & Brothers. Thereafter, the firm became sick and the assets and liabilities were transferred on 26.12.1988 in favour of the defendants 1 and 2/2nd and 3rd respondents herein. As such it is their case that the petitioners have nothing to do with regard to the erstwhile loan as well as the new loan obtained by these two respondent companies. For the loan advanced to Murugesan & Brothers, the petitioners had offered their house properties as securities. It is their specific case that after the assets and liabilities of the said partnership were taken over by respondents 2 and 3 herein and fresh securities were offered, the Bank ought to have returned the documents to them. Failure to return the documents have made them liable for the loan obtained by respondents 1 and 2 and they are made to suffer the liability of paying huge amount. Hence, they filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, challenging that order of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III. While filing an appeal, a waiver application was filed for total waiver of the amount to be paid as a precondition deposit. Hence, they filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, challenging that order of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III. While filing an appeal, a waiver application was filed for total waiver of the amount to be paid as a precondition deposit. It is the petitioners' case that the Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself in directing the petitioners to deposit 50% of the amount due into the Tribunal, thereby caused great prejudice to the petitioners. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-Bank, reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit filed, would submit that when the Debts Recovery Tribunal have come to the conclusion that the documents relied on by the first respondent-Bank are genuine that all the petitioners herein are the signatories of those documents for the loan obtained by them and also made a letter to the respondent-Bank agreeing to hold the above document with the Bank for the loan obtained by them, it is not now proper for them to come to this Court and contend that they are not at all liable to pay the debts due to the Bank. He further adds that all the questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are all purely factual, which could be verified and tested only before the Appellate Forum and not before this Court. 6. We have heard the rival submissions carefully. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent-Bank, the question raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein are purely factual in nature and it has to be gone into and tested only before the Appellate Authority. Though there is a finding by the Debts Recovery Tribunal that the partnership has not been proved, but still their signatures in the documents available with first respondent-Bank are admitted by them. But, the contention that those documents have not been signed by them and their signatures were obtained in blank printed forms and later added as documents without their knowledge, are all the questions, in our considered opinion, cannot be gone into by this Court and the same can only be decided by the appropriate Forum. 8. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein. 8. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein. However, since there is a finding by the Tribunal that the partition deed has not been proved and they have been made liable only on account of the signatures contained in the documents relied upon by them, we are inclined to interfere with the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal, to a limited extent, by directing the petitioners herein to deposit only 25%of the amount total due viz., 50% of Rs.2,34,71,519/-demanded by DRAT, into the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks. Since the time granted by the Appellate Authority has been already lapsed, the petitioners herein shall deposit the money, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made before the Appellate Tribunal, the Appellate Authority shall take up the appeal on file, hear the appeal on merits and pass orders in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned. 9. The observation made by this Court here is only for the disposal of the Interlocutory Application, and the Appellate Authority shall not be influenced by these observations made herein by this Court and the Appellate Authority shall decide the issue independently on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 10. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.