ORDER The petitioner no.1 M/s. Siddharth Jewellers Private Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the business of selling jewelleries. At the request of he petitioners, State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Ballygunge, Kolkata sanctioned Metal (Gold) loan for 28 kg. in phases, vide letter dated 2.9.2003. Petitioners no.2 and 3 guaranteed due re-payment of the loan granted to the petitioner no.1 with interest and other miscellaneous charges agreed upon under the agreement executed by the Bank on 29.9.2003. Further on the request made by the petitioner no.1, State Bank of India, Opera House Branch, Mumbai also sanctioned Metal (Gold) Loan to the extent of 25 kg. in phases to the petitioner no.1. There also petitioners no.2 and 3 stood guarantors. 2. Under the agreement, the petitioner was permitted to receive from the Bank Gold as per its requirement to the maximum sanctioned limit for manufacturing ornaments and selling them and pay back the money and interest at the agreed rate on the monetary value of the gold till the entire money (monetary value of the gold) is paid back. 3. The metal loan scheme envisages loan in Metal (Gold) to eligible domestic Jewellers. Such loan provides certain advantages to the jewellers in the manner that they are able to obtain gold without affecting the payment immediately. The interest rate is also lower than that applicable to loans under the normal scheme for exporter as also to the domestic jewellers. 4. The petitioners agreed to repay the value of the Gold with interest @ 4% per annum for loan taken from Opera House Branch, Mumbai and 4.5% interest per annum for the loan taken from the Ballygunge Branch, Kolkata. The petitioner had given security against the aforesaid gold loan sanctioned to it. To secure the loan, the petitioner no.1 time to time submitted letter of comfort for a total sum of Rs.175 lakhs to the State Bank of India, commercial Branch, Ballygunge, Kolkata and Rs.95 lakhs to the Opera House Branch, Mumbai. These letters of comfort had been obtained by the petitioners from the Commercial Branch, Doranda, Ranchi. 5. According to the case of the respondent, when the petitioner no.1 failed to carry out the terms and conditions of the loan, letters of comfort were invoked by the concerned branch. These letters of comfort had been obtained by the petitioners from the Commercial Branch, Doranda, Ranchi. 5. According to the case of the respondent, when the petitioner no.1 failed to carry out the terms and conditions of the loan, letters of comfort were invoked by the concerned branch. After adjustment of the said amount, total outstanding dues on both the accounts were determined as Rs.1,47,31,836.58; out of which the outstanding dues of Ballygunge Branch was to the tune of Rs.1,43,16,784.49 whereas for Opera House, Mumbai Branch it was to the tune of Rs.4,15,052,.09. Therefore, the Bank filed OA case no.10 of 2009 for recovery of the said amount of Rs.1,47,31,846.58 along with pendent elite and future interest @16.75% per annum with monthly interest in Metal (Gold) loan till the date of payment and other consequential prayers. 6. Upon issuance of the summons by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioners appeared on 23.1.2009. However, it did not file written statement and as such, petitioners were debarred from filing written statement, vide order dated 26.11.2009. However, on 30.6.2010, the respondent-Bank filed its evidence on affidavit. Thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 26.11.2009 by which the petitioners had been debarred from filing written statement. It was recalled and the on 27.7.2010, written statement was filed. At the same time, the respondent-Bank was granted liberty to file additional evidence which he did file on 21.9.2010. On 25.11.2010, the petitioners also filed their evidences on affidavit. Thereupon the case was posted for final argument on 3.12.2010. However, on 18.2.2011, the petitioners filed an application under Section 22(2)(b) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RDBFI Act’) for production of original/certified copies of the documents mentioned in the petition. On that application, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi passed an order on 15.12.2011 whereby the respondent-Bank was directed to produce certified/xerox copies of the documents which were sought to be produced. In spite of that order, documents were not produced. Subsequently, on 17.6.2013 the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi passed an order to the effect that relevance of production of the documents and the effect of non-filing of the said documents shall be examined at the time of trial in the context of the plea which would be taken by the petitioners and the respondent. Subsequently, on 17.6.2013 the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi passed an order to the effect that relevance of production of the documents and the effect of non-filing of the said documents shall be examined at the time of trial in the context of the plea which would be taken by the petitioners and the respondent. On passing of such order, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners on 25.6.2013 for review/recall of the order dated 17.6.2013. On 25.6.2013, the petitioners also took objection over the maintainability of the petition filed by the State Bank of India, Nariman Point, Mumbai through Stressed Assets Management Branch, Patna as loan had been taken from the State Bank of India, Ballugunge Branch, Kolkata and the State Bank of India, Opera House Branch, Mumbai. On the same day, another application was filed under Section 22(2)(e) of the RDBFI Act, 1993 read with Rule 12(6) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1993 for summoning and enforcing for attendance of witnesses of the Bank officials for their cross-examination. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, vide its order dated 5.7.2013 dismissed all the three applications. 7. Being aggrieved with the order dated 5.7.2013, the petitioners did file an appeal bearing no.R-168 of 2013 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. There objection was taken with respect to maintainability of the composite appeal which had been directed against the order whereby three applications had been rejected. On such objection being raised, the petitioners confined his prayer with respect to the matter relating to the production of the documents. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, vide its order dated 22.7.2013 dismissed the said appeal by holding that non-filing of the documents and its consequences shall be considered at the time of trial. 8. Being aggrieved with that order, this writ application has been filed. 9. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi upon an application filed by the petitioners under Section 22(2)(b) of the RDBFI Act has passed an order on 15.12.2011 directing the respondent-Bank to produce the documents sought for but later on, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi by passing an order on 17.6.2013 to the effect that relevance of the documents sought to be produced and consequence of non-production of the documents shall be examined during trial, has virtually recalled its earlier order dated 15.12.2011 and thereby it committed illegality. 10. 10. In this regard it was further submitted that in absence of those documents which were sought to be produced, the petitioners cannot take effective defence and thereby non-production of the documents amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. 11. Learned counsel by referring to the provision as contained in Section 22 of the RDBFI Act submits that though sub-section (1) of Section 22 does stipulate that the Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure but it shall be guided by the principle of natural justice. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the RDBFI Act does stipulate specifically that the Tribunal with respect to certain matters enumerated therein including the matter relating to discovery and production of the documents, shall have the same power as has been vested in the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. In that eventuality, all the provisions relating to discovery and production of document as enshrined under Order 11 including Rule 14 of Order 11 envisaging production of the document of being ordered by the court and also Rule 21 of Order 11 stipulating therein about the consequence of suit being dismissed on account of non-compliance of the order passed under the said provision of Order 11 shall be applicable. In that event, the order dated 17.6.2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi and also the order dated 22.7.2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad become quite bad and therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal position, both the orders warrant to be set aside. 12. Learned counsel in support of his case has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Jayram Mohapatra vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others (AIR 2014 Ori 12) passed by the Orissa High Court holding therein that non-production of the documents as ordered by the Tribunal amounts to non-compliance of the principle of natural justice. 13. As against this, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that the fact leading to filing of this application itself suggest that this application has been filed to delay the proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as admittedly an application under Section 22(2)(b) of the RDBFI Act has been filed not only after filing of the written statement but also after filing of the affidavit on evidences. 14. 14. Further it was submitted that on perusal of the statements made in the written statement and also in the affidavit relating to evidence, one would find that whatever outstanding dues are there against the petitioners for recovery of which case has been lodged by the Bank, has been admitted and thereby no occasion was there for the petitioners to file such application. However, on such application an order was passed directing the Bank to produce the documents which were not produced and therefore, the Tribunal, vide its order dated 17.6.2013 has rightly passed an order that the relevance of the documents and consequence of non-filing would be taken into account at the time of trial and thereby neither the Tribunal nor the Appellate Tribunal has committed any illegality as in that event, no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioners nor it would be a case of violation of the principle of natural justice. 15. Further it was submitted that the provision as enshrined under Section 22(1) of the RDBFI Act clearly lays down that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure rather shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and therefore, even if sub-section (2) of Section 22 does prescribe that the Tribunal shall be vested with the same powers as are vested in the civil court with respect to certain items mentioned therein including the matter relating to discovery and production of the documents, it does not mean that the consequence provided under the code of non-compliance of the order of production of the document would be enforced by the Tribunal as in that event, the provision made in sub-section (1) of Section 22 stipulating therein that the Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure would be rendered as nugatory. In such event, harmonious construction of both the provisions warrants to be made so that effect of both the provisions as is there under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 22 be there. 16. Thus, the question which does arise for adjudication is as to whether once the Tribunal passed an order for production of the document, consequence of it as contemplated under Order 11 Rule 21 is mandatorily required to be given effect to by the Tribunal. 17. 16. Thus, the question which does arise for adjudication is as to whether once the Tribunal passed an order for production of the document, consequence of it as contemplated under Order 11 Rule 21 is mandatorily required to be given effect to by the Tribunal. 17. For adjudicating this issue, one at the first instance needs to take notice of the provision as contained in Section 22 of the RDBFI Act which reads as follows: 22. Procedure and powers of the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal- (1) The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules, the Tribunal ad the Appellate Tribunal shall have powers to regulate their own procedure including the places at which they shall have their sittings. (2) The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging their functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (e) reviewing its decisions; (f) dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte; (g) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it ex parte; (h) any other matter which may be prescribed; From perusal of the provision as is there under sub-section (2) of Section 22 it is evidently clear that neither the Tribunal nor the Appellate Tribunal shall be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it shall be guided by the principle of natural justice in order to regulate its proceeding subject to other provisions of the Act and the Rules. In other words, it can be said that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal can laid down its procedure to regulate the proceeding, keeping in view that the principle of natural justice be adhered to. 19. In other words, it can be said that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal can laid down its procedure to regulate the proceeding, keeping in view that the principle of natural justice be adhered to. 19. However, sub-section (2) of Section 22 does prescribe that the Tribunal shall have the same power while discharging his function as is vested under the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to the matter as has been enumerated in sub clause (a) to (h) including the matter relating to discovery and production of documents as has been stipulated under subclause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 22 but that in view of the provision as contained in sub-section (1) of Section 22 does not mean that the Tribunal has to strictly follow the provision of the Code relating to the matter as enumerated under sub-clause (a) to (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 22. If the Legislature would have intended that the Tribunal with respect to those matter enumerated under clause (a) to (h) should proceed as per the relevant provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, exception of those provisions would have been made in sub-section (1) of Section 22 which does stipulate that the Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such event, when those provisions are construed harmoniously, one would come to the conclusion that it is for the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal to follow the procedure or not to follow the procedure relating to the matter incorporated under clause (a) to (h) but if the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal resorts to those provisions, it will have same power which has been vested in the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Basically, it appears to me that sub-section (2) relates to the power of the Tribunal. Once it exercises such power with respect to the matter as stated above, it will have the same authority which the civil court does have under the Code. Consequently, it can be said that it is the discretion of the Tribunal to enforce or not to enforce all the provisions relating to each of the items as enumerated under clause (a) to (h) including the matter relating to the discovery and production of documents as is there under sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 22. 20. Consequently, it can be said that it is the discretion of the Tribunal to enforce or not to enforce all the provisions relating to each of the items as enumerated under clause (a) to (h) including the matter relating to the discovery and production of documents as is there under sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 22. 20. On the other hand, if it is held that the Tribunal is to strictly adhered to the provision concerning the matter as enumerated under clause (a) to (h), then the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 22 shall be rendered nugatory as mandate of the legislature is that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, rather it will have power to regulate their own procedure. In that event, submission which has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners is not worth acceptable. The view taken hereinabove does find support from the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Union of India and another vs. Delhi High Court Bar Association and others [ (2002) 4 SCC 275 ] wherein it has been observed as under: “The very purpose of establishing the Tribunal being to expedite the disposal of the applications filed by the banks and financial institutions for realization of money, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are required to deal with the applications in an expeditious manner. It is precisely for this reason that Section 22(1) stipulates that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, even though the Tribunal can regulate its own procedure, the Act requires that any procedure laid down by it must be guided by the principles of natural justice while, at the same time, it should not regard itself as being bound by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 22(1) of the Act stipulates that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, while being guided by the principles of natural justice, are to be subjected to the other provisions of the Act and the Rules.” 21. Section 22(1) of the Act stipulates that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, while being guided by the principles of natural justice, are to be subjected to the other provisions of the Act and the Rules.” 21. It be stated that the Tribunal though in its earlier order dated 15.12.2011 had asked the Bank to produce documents but it was not produced and thereby an order was passed on 17.6.2013 that the matter relating to relevance of the documents and the consequence of non production would be considered during trial which shall mean that adverse inference may be drawn on account of non-production of the document which, according to the Tribunal, was necessary to be produced for taking just defence by the petitioners and thereby the principle of natural justice would be adhered to. In the case of Jayram Mohapatra vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others (supra) as referred to on behalf of the petitioner, the fact was something different where before filing of the written statement, certain documents were asked to be produced which were not produced, as a result of which, written statement was not filed, in spite of that the court proceeded with the matter and decided it as ex-parte. In such circumstance, it was held that non-filing of the document does have effect of violation of principle of natural justice. 22. Here in the instant case, it has been already pointed out that before filing application under Section 22(2)(b) of the RDBFI Act not only written statement has been filed but even the evidence on affidavit has been laid into and thereby the question of violation of principle of natural justice does not arise. 23. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality with the order dated 17.6.2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi and also the order dated 22.7.2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. 24. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.