Order The petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 24.06.2013 in R.A. No. 137/2010. The above appeal was filed by the Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, aggrieved by the order passed in O.A. No. 24/2009 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. 2. The petitioner was the third respondent before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. She was placed ex-parte. The appeal filed by the Bank came to be allowed directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, to issue a Recovery Certificate against all the respondents therein. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. The main contention of the petitioner before us is that for the loan advanced by the Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, in favour of second respondent T.R. Chandran, she stood as a guarantor only in respect of cash credit hypothecation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- and bill discounting limit of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 4. According to her, the bank had filed recovery proceedings in the original application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal not only in respect of these two loans but also in respect of other two loans. Therefore, she contends that the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in directing the appellant to pay the dues for which she has not stood as guarantor. In the circumstances, the learned Counsel for the petitioner requests the Court to allow the petition and set aside the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 5. Per contra, Sri V.B. Ravishankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, submits that the Bank initially had filed the case before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal claiming for recovery of fore loan advanced by the Bank in favour of T.R. Chandran, and arrayed the petitioner and Smt. Sarita as guarantors. However, he admits that the petitioner herein had stood as a guarantor only in respect of two loans of Rs. 15,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- as contended by the petitioner. It is also his case that during the pendency of the matter, the other two loans borrowed by T.R. Chandran, has been discharged by him and the remaining liability is only concerning the two loans for which the petitioner has stood as a guarantor. Therefore, he has no objection to modify the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Therefore, he has no objection to modify the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 24.06.2013 passed in R.A. No. 137/2010 is modified holding that the petitioner’s liability shall be confined to cash credit hypothecation loan of Rs.15,00,000/- and bill discounting limit of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest accrued thereon, after deducting the amount, if any, paid by the original borrower.