JUDGMENT Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the concerned records relating to the order passed by the 9th respondent herein vide orders dated 28.07.2021 passed in M.A.Nos. 31, 73 and 53 of 2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the 9th respondent to take up the appeals and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 1. By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the orders dated 28.07.2021 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in M.A.Nos.31, 73 and 53 of 2018 respectively with a direction to take up the appeals and dispose of the same expeditiously. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the Debts Recovery Tribunal did not allow the petitioner to cross-examine a witness, appeals were preferred before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. An interim order was passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The matter was adjourned from time to time, as is coming out from the perusal of the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal for the past 3 ½ years. On 28.07.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner was present, yet the interim order was vacated without assigning any reason though the interim order was in operation for the last more than 7 years. In view of the above, the challenge to the said orders has been made seeking a further direction to the Appellate Tribunal to hear and decide the appeals so that the petitioner, being a guarantor, would get a chance of cross-examine the witness. 3. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 4. The perusal of the orders dated 28.07.2021 shows that despite the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, he did not argue the case finally despite a request by the Tribunal. The Original Applications were pending for the last 7 years and therefore, the Tribunal did not find it appropriate to extend the interim order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to why the petitioner was not willing to argue the case on 28.07.2021 when it was pending for the last 7 years and ripe for hearing as pleading was complete, no answer or justification has been given. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to why the petitioner was not willing to argue the case on 28.07.2021 when it was pending for the last 7 years and ripe for hearing as pleading was complete, no answer or justification has been given. It is apart from the fact that no effort was made by the petitioner to make an application before the Appellate Tribunal to seek revival of the interim order by recalling the order dated 28.07.2021 till the Appellate Tribunal was fully functional. The inaction to seek revival of the interim order by recalling the order dated 28.07.2021 shows the effort of the petitioner to delay the matters. A guarantor does not mean that he would not be willing to argue the appeal and get it adjourned and for that reason, the interim order was vacated to contest it by filing a writ petition. For all the reasons given above, we do not find any case in favour of the petitioner to interfere with the order dated 28.07.2021. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.259, 261 and 262 of 2022 are closed.