ORDER : (Anil Kumar Jukanti, J.) 1. Mr. M. Narender Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Umesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking to grant the following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner Bank herein prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ in the certiorari calling for the records in RA.No.41/2007 from the 1st respondent and to quash the order dated 11.01.2008 in RA.No.41/2007 of the 1st respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." 3. Brief facts: The unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 are in the business of manufacturing mileage boosters, which save petrol and each piece costs Rs.1,500/-. They approached the petitioner-bank for financial assistance and the bank initially sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.40,433.63 ps. for purchase of machinery etc., and that the 5th respondent himself invested a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the purchase of machinery. 3.1. The respondent No.5, proprietor of respondent No.4 availed Cash Credit (Mundy Type) facility with a limit of Rs.5,70,000/-, Cash Credit (Outward Bill) facility with a limit of Rs.1,10,000/- and a Medium Term Loan facility with a limit of Rs.1,45,000/-. The respondent No.5 representing respondent No.4 executed Guarantee Agreement dated 18.05.1984 for grant of Small Industrial Advances and Hypothecation of Movables Agreement for a sum of Rs.6,80,000/-, Ancillary Agreement No.1 for a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- and Ancillary Agreement No.3 for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and 3rd respondent stood as guarantor for repayment of loans and executed the Guarantee Agreement on 18.05.1984. 3.2. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 admitted that the respondent No.3 stood as guarantor and created equitable mortgage of his immovable property in favour of petitioner. However, respondent Nos.4 and 5 denied the correctness of the statement of account(s) filed by petitioner and also denied liability with regard to insurance charges claimed by petitioner. 3.3. The respondent No.3 on 06.06.1984 executed an agreement and extended equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds as security for repayment of loans. However, respondent Nos.4 and 5 denied the correctness of the statement of account(s) filed by petitioner and also denied liability with regard to insurance charges claimed by petitioner. 3.3. The respondent No.3 on 06.06.1984 executed an agreement and extended equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds as security for repayment of loans. As the respondents did not pay the dues in spite of notices, the petitioner-bank filed O.S.No.1082 of 1989 on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,09,697.72 ps. under cash credit facility and Rs.2,77,066.09 ps. under Medium Term Loan facility. Respondents admitted sanction of Rs.5,70,000/- under the Cash Credit (Mundy Type) facility and Rs.1,10,000/- under the Cash Credit (Outward Bills) facility, but denied sanction of Rs.1,45,000/- under the Medium Term Loan facility. O.S.No.1082 of 1989 was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT') at Bangalore and numbered as O.A.No.146 of 1997 after constitution of DRT for States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. O.A.No.146 of 1997 was transferred to DRT, Hyderabad, and renumbered as O.A.No.616 of 1999 after constitution of DRT at Hyderabad. 3.4. The DRT by order dated 13.09.2006 held that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.14,86,763.81 ps. with costs, current and future interest at 15% per annum on Rs.12,09,697.72 ps. with quarterly rests and interest at 13.5% per annum, on Rs.2,77,066.09 ps. with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the order of the DRT, the respondent No.3 filed appeal No.RA-41 of 2007 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Chennai and by order dated 11.01.2008, DRAT allowed the said appeal. 3.5. The DRAT recorded in its order that it was evident from records that subsequent to filing of inventory report by Commissioner in February, 1992, all the 492 mileage boosters were lost on account of negligence of petitioner-bank. That on a fair calculation, the total value of 500 mileage boosters admittedly seized by the bank were valued at Rs.7,50,000/-.i.e., on the date of filing of the said suit and the petitioner-bank had taken possession of the premises and seized the said movables and kept under lock and key and taken inventory of the finished and unfinished goods, machinery etc. But, petitioner-bank had not taken steps to dispose of the mileage boosters as their value and utility would last only for two years from the date of manufacture and that the stocks became useless. 3.6. The DRAT considered the judgments of the Apex Court in T. Raju Setty v. Bank of Baroda, AIR 1992 KARNATAKA 108 and Central Bank of India v. M/s. Multi Block Private Limited, AIR 1997 BOMBAY 109. 3.7. The DRAT held that petitioner-bank was guilty of laches and negligence in losing the prime security and that Clause No.7 in the agreement cannot be invoked. It further held that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the said decisions with reference to the discharge of the suretyship under Section 141 of the Contract Act, 1872 was squarely applicable to the facts of the case and the appellate Tribunal held that since the prime security was lost by bank on account of its own negligence and inaction, surety offered by respondent No.3 stood discharged by operation of law. The DRAT allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 and set aside the order passed by the DRT in O.A.No.616 of 1999, dated 13.09.2006, and the OA was dismissed insofar as the respondent No.3/guarantor concerned with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The DRAT further held that the respondent No.3 was entitled for refund of an amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs deposited under Section 21 of the Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 from the petitioner-bank. Assailing the said order, the petitioner-bank filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-bank submitted that the order of the DRAT is erroneous and it has not appreciated the fact that the unofficial respondents have defaulted in repaying the loan amount and the petitioner-bank has rightly seized the stocks pertaining to the respondent No.4. It is submitted that the unofficial respondents are liable to repay the amounts, availed as Cash Credits and Term Loan. It is further submitted that DRAT has not taken into consideration the judgments relied on by the petitioner-bank. It is submitted that mileage boosters lose their utility within a period of two years. It is submitted that mileage boosters became defunct as on the date of seizure by the bank. It is trite to note that the contention of "mileage boosters becoming defunct" was not raised either before the DRAT or the DRT. It is submitted that mileage boosters lose their utility within a period of two years. It is submitted that mileage boosters became defunct as on the date of seizure by the bank. It is trite to note that the contention of "mileage boosters becoming defunct" was not raised either before the DRAT or the DRT. It is also a fact that no test was conducted on the mileage boosters by the bank to prove the fact that they have become defunct as on the date of seizure. 5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the order of the DRAT. He submitted that the DRAT has taken into consideration all the aspects and all the grounds raised by the parties and the DRAT came to the conclusion that as on the date of fling of the suit, the bank had taken possession of the premises and seized the movables and kept under lock and key and had taken inventory of the finished and unfinished goods, machinery etc. The bank by its own negligence allowed the movables lose their value. It is submitted that the discharge the suretyship of respondent No.3 in respect of loan amount payable by respondent Nos.4 and 5 is valid. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. 6. None appeared for respondent Nos.3 to 5. From the order of DRAT, it is noticed that the following submissions were advanced on behalf of respondent No.3 before the DRAT. That the total amount due was Rs.12,09,697.72 ps. and bank took possession of all 500 available mileage boosters and kept them under lock and key after taking inventory of the articles and were in the custody of the bank from 24.10.1985. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were not permitted to deal with the articles. No efforts were made by bank to sell mileage boosters and realize the outstanding amount which was Rs.7,08,040.73 ps. as on 30.09.1985. It was submitted before the DRAT that respondent No.3 who offered the surety stood discharged as principal debtor as per Section 141 of the Contract Act as the bank lost the prime security, mileage boosters. That respondent No.3 was discharged of the suretyship in respect of the loan amount payable by respondent Nos.4 and 5. 7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, the order passed by the DRAT. 7.1. That respondent No.3 was discharged of the suretyship in respect of the loan amount payable by respondent Nos.4 and 5. 7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, the order passed by the DRAT. 7.1. Considered the rival submissions, taken note of the submissions made by respondent No.3 as culled out in the DRAT order. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.4 and 5 availed loan facility from the petitioner-bank and they defaulted in repayment of the loan and that respondent No.3 stood as surety for the amounts advanced to respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is also not in dispute that on account of default in repayment, the bank took possession of 500 mileage boosters and after taking inventory, they were in the custody of bank under lock and key from 24.10.1985. 7.2. It is pertinent to observe that the bank had not taken any steps to dispose of the mileage boosters as their utility would be only for two years from the date of manufacture. It is also trite to state that the bank had raised a contention that boosters had become defunct as on the date of possession by the bank, this stand has not been raised either before DRAT or DRT to be countered by the other side. No opinion was obtained by an expert that the mileage boosters lost their utility at the time of taking possession by the bank. Such a stand cannot be canvassed by the petitioner-bank by merely stating that the mileage boosters have lost their utility without taking any steps earlier. The DRAT has rightly held that the petitioner- bank was aware that the utility of the mileage boosters would last only for two years and that the bank should have taken steps for recovering the amount or to get the value of the goods by estimate or dispose them. This is a very crucial aspect which the DRAT has rightly taken note of and held that there is negligence on the part of the bank. We find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the DRAT. No grounds have been made out necessitating any interference in the order of the DRAT. The writ petition is devoid of merits. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No grounds have been made out necessitating any interference in the order of the DRAT. The writ petition is devoid of merits. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.