DRAT, in paragraph 13 of the impugned order, has prima facie come to the conclusion that the Petitioners had consented to the creation of the mortgage. We, after perusing the record, do not find that the said finding of the DRAT, is in any way, perverse which would require our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the said finding is prima facie finding and was given to determine whether any pre-deposit ought to be ordered before the Appeal filed by the Petitioner is entertained. Section 2(1)(f) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 defines the word “borrower” inter-alia to mean any person who has been granted financial assistance by any Bank or Financial Institution or who has given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge as security for the financial assistance granted by the said Bank or Financial Institution. From this definition, it is absolutely clear that a mortgagor, even though not being a guarantor or a principle borrower, would still be included in the definition of the word “borrower” as defined in Section 2(1)(f) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is keeping this definition in mind that the DRAT came to the conclusion that the Petitioner ought to be directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 125 crores as a pre-deposit for the Appeal to be entertained. This figure was arrived at because the sale notice indicates that the debt due is approximately Rs. 259 crores.
