discrepancies are reiterated at the time of arguments, which are also reflected in Written Submissions, but it may not be proper to deal with those discrepancies, since it may reflect on main adjudication process while appreciating evidence of both parties in the OA, therefore, I am not recording those aspects in this Order. Main objection of 1st Respondent Bank is that Application is filed to protract the case and drag on the proceedings. In fact, if 1st Respondent Bank has consented for production of witness, by this time, main OA ought to have been disposed of, and because of this Appeal, OA is pending since last four years. When a specific pleading is to the effect that certain documents are not at all executed and there is collusion between principal borrower and officials of 1st Respondent Bank, Tribunal below ought to have given an opportunity to Appellant to cross examine PW1, deponent of Proof Affidavit, by which no prejudice will be caused to 1st Respondent Bank. The grounds recorded by Tribunal below is that oral evidence cannot be allowed against written documents, cannot be applied to all cases, and it can be applied only in certain specified circumstances as indicated in Section 91 of Indian Evidence
