Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
INDIAN BANK vs THUPAKULA NARASAIAH on 14 August 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
Appeal No. 51 of 2026
Order No. 08
14.08.2026
Indian Bank
… Appellant
-Vs-
Thupakula Narasaiah & 7 0thers
… Respondents
Ms.
Ashmita
Lohia
and
Ms. Varsha Khowala, Learned
Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. G.K. Deshpande (Virtual) with
Mr.
Sreyash
Basu
Dasgupta,
Learned Counsel for Respondent
No. 1
Mr. Shashwat Nayak (Virtual)
with Ms. Sannoyee Chakravorty,
Learned
Counsel
for
the
Respondents No. 6, 7 and 8
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:
I.A. 217 of 2026
Application by the Appellant under Order 41 Rule 27
C.P.C. for filing of the additional evidence.
Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant as well as Respondents No. 1 and 6, 7 and 8 and perused the record.
At the very outset, it was observed that the Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 objected to the application on the ground that the Appellant was trying to fill up the lacune before the Learned DRT, which is not permissible under the law.
Per contra, Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the Application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was filed
on the ground that the document could not be filed because of bona fide inadvertence despite exercising due diligence.
The
Hon’ble
Apex
Court
in
Chowdappa
-vs-
Hanumantharayappa & Others (2026 SCC OnLine
1509) decided on 6th of August, 2026, has laid down the law in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment which reads as under:
“12. The decisions relied on by the Appellant can be captured and summarised as follows:
12.1 An Appellate Court has a statutory duty to deal with an Application for Additional Evidence on its merits. The application cannot be ignored while the Court proceeds to pronounce the final
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Judgment.
12.2 The Application must be considered simultaneously with the hearing of the main Appeal on its merits to determine whether the Court "requires" the documents to pronounce Judgment or for any other substantial cause. 12.3 The Appellate Court must pass a specific order either allowing or rejecting the application. If the production of documents is allowed, the Court is obligated to record its reasons for admission. 12.4 Before undertaking the exercise of evaluating the additional evidence, the Appellate Court must first examine the party's pleadings to ensure that the foundational case set up supports the introduction of the proposed evidence. 12.5 Dismissing an appeal without deciding a pending application for additional evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error and results in a severe miscarriage of justice.
13. Leading to the conclusion that, in the present matter, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Cross-Objection without referring to, considering, or adjudicating the Application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for the production of crucial documents, including the Judgments from O.S. 369 of 1997, bank loan discharges, and surveyor sketches. The High Court committed a direct jurisdictional error by completely ignoring the Application while disposing of the Appeal, directly contravening the principles laid out in the decisions supra. The High Court had a duty to evaluate the Application at the final hearing to determine whether the documents were necessary to pronounce Judgment in a more satisfactory manner. The failure to pass a reasoned order either allowing or rejecting this Application before sustaining the Trial Court's decree resulted in a procedural failure and a miscarriage of justice.”
As far as merits of the matter are concerned, certain documents are yet to be filed which are Sale Notice, Documents of service, Affixation and Paper Publication, etc., which should have been filed before the Learned DRT but could not be filed by the Appellant. These documents are necessary for just decision of the appeal. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I.A. 217 of 2016 is allowed. Affidavit-in-reply may be filed by the Respondents within two weeks. I.A. 544 of 2026 is filed by the Appellant for staying operation of the impugned order. Let opposition to the I.A. be filed within two weeks. List on 15th October, 2026 for hearing of appeal. (Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson Dated: 14th August, 2026 13/ac