Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010105322016 2025:GAU-AS:7686 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/138/2016 MRS. BAMANG YAYU and ANR. W/O BAMANG MANGHA, R/O BAGE TINALI, P.O. and P.S. NIRJULI, DIST- PAPUMPARE, ARUNACHAL PRADESH 2: SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN S/O MADAN LAL JAIN R/O BAGE TINALI NIRJULI DIST- PAPUMPARE A.P VERSUS UCO BANK and ANR. ITANAGAR BRANCH, BANK TINALI, ITANAGAR-791111, DIST- PAPUM PARE, A.P. 2:THE BRANCH MANAGER UCO BANK ITANAGAR BRANCH BANK TINALI ITANAGAR-791111 DIST- PAPUM PARE A.P Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S SANCHETI, MR.R C SANCHATI,MS.S SAH Advocate for the Respondent : MR.R K BHATRA R, MR.K K BHATRA(R-1&2),MR.R RABHA(R- 1&2) Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 10.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Sanchati, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are facing a recovery proceeding before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati, in the O.A. No. 177/2012 initiated by the Itanagar Branch of the UCO Bank. They are aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2015, whereby the bank’s petition No. 856/2015 for bringing on record the Xerox copy of the power of attorney executed by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner, was allowed by the DRT. The petition was filed alleging introduction of secondary evidence in recovery proceeding. 3. This Court under its order dated 08.01.2016, while issuing notice of motion, provided that pendency of this writ petition shall not be a bar for DRT to pass the final order in the O.A. No. 177/2012, but same is made subject to the result of this case. 4. In the meantime, during the pendency of this writ petition, the O.A. has already been allowed by the learned DRT, Guwahati under its Judgment dated 29.01.2016 and admittedly, no appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid O.A. 5. Mr. Sanchati, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this Court can enter into the merit of the judgment passed by the DRT inasmuch as the final outcome was subject matter of the present writ petition. This Court is not inclined to accept such contention inasmuch as the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by this Court was an interim order and by entering into merit of the contention Page No.# 3/3 raised in this writ petition, the judgment of the learned DRT cannot be reversed inasmuch as such a decision of the learned DRT is appealable. 6. This Court is of further opinion that the issue raised in this writ petition i.e. the introduction of secondary evidence and the affect of such secondary evidence on the final outcome on the judgment dated 29.01.2016 passed on O.A. No. 177/2012 can effectively be decided by the statutory appellate forum. 7. In view of the aforesaid and in view of the subsequent development, this Court is not inclined to decide this writ petition for having efficacious alternative remedy. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed. The petitioners are permitted to approach before the appropriate forum, if so advised, as per law. While condoning the delay, the appellate authority may exclude the period spent before this Court w.e.f. 29.01.2016. JUDGE Comparing Assistant