Court : DRAT Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-25-2005
1. this miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/ original defendant nos. 2 (a) and 2 (b) being aggrieved by the order dated 3rd december, 2003 passed by the learned presiding officer of debts recovery tribunal-iii, mumbai on exhibit nos. 16 and 23 in original application no. 382 of 200 1. by the impugned order, the learned presiding officer allowed the application made by the respondent no.1 bank for taking on record heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant nos. 2 and 4. being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no.2 dhansukhlal panalai khadepau, who had expired on 17th august, 2001.2. few relevant facts, which are required to be stated are as follows: the respondent no.1 dena bank has filed suit in the high court of judicature at bombay being suit no. 1140 of 1998 against six defendants praying joint and several decree against them for an aggregate sum of rs. 76,23,255.app. with interest etc. and for enforcement of their securities. the said suit came to be transferred to the d.r.t-iii, mumbai upon establishment of the d.r.ts as per provisions of the rddbfi act, 1993 and was re-numbered as original application no. 382 of 2001.3. it appears that during pendency of the original application, the original defendant no.2 dhansukhlal panalal khadepau expired on 17th august, 2001. the appellant no.1 sharad khadepaul defendant no.2 (a) by his letter dated 24th august, 2001 informed the .....Tag this Judgment!