Legal Rep Cannot Raise New Defence Not Taken By Deceased Borrower: DRAT Upholds Rejection of Non-Supply of OA Paper Book Plea
The tribunal held that the appellant could not raise pleas not taken by the deceased defendant and found no illegality in the DRT’s order.
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata, held that legal heirs cannot introduce new defences not raised by the original defendant, also rejected her defence for non-filing of a written statement, citing non-supply of a legible copy of the O.A. paper bookThe appeal arises from O.A. No.200/2019 before DRT-III, Chandigarh. By order dated 13 October 2025, the tribunal closed...
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata, held that legal heirs cannot introduce new defences not raised by the original defendant, also rejected her defence for non-filing of a written statement, citing non-supply of a legible copy of the O.A. paper book
The appeal arises from O.A. No.200/2019 before DRT-III, Chandigarh. By order dated 13 October 2025, the tribunal closed the opportunity of the defendants to file their written statement and struck off their defence.
The appellant, Rani Bala, who was impleaded as the legal representative of Defendant No.2 (since deceased), challenged this order before the appellate tribunal.
Counsel, Mr Sarbjot Singh Cheema, for the appellant, argued that the appellant is a legal representative of defendant no.2, who was the proprietor of defendant no.1 firm. unfortunatly defendent no.2 died, and appellant and one another were impleaded as his legal representatives. Also argued that she could not file the written statement as a legible copy of the O.A. paper book was not supplied despite her application. It was contended that the impugned order deprived her of the right to raise a defence.
Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson, however, noted that Defendant No.2, during his lifetime, had never raised any objection regarding the non-supply of legible copies.
The tribunal observed that once the appellant stepped into the shoes of Defendant No.2 as his legal representative, she could not raise pleas that were not taken by the deceased defendant. The appellate tribunal held that such pleas were intended only to delay the proceedings and were not permissible in law.
The tribunal noted that “The appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Appeal is dismissed in limine at admission stage. File be consigned to record room.”
Finding no illegality in the DRT's order, the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
