and it was thereafter recorded that the bank does not want to file any additional CAOD and the matter stood posted to 28.09.2016 for filing CAOD by the Defendant. Thereafter the matter was posted several times before the D.R.T. and ultimately the impugned order was passed on the premise the written statement was not received because the cost directed to be paid was not paid. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant points out the receipt at exhibit -E which indicates that the cost of ₹2000/- was paid on 19.07.2016, well before the date of reporting compliance on 23.08.2016. Unfortunately, the payment of cost does not seem to have been recorded by the Ld. Presiding Officer in the order dated 23.08.2016. Probably because of the pressure of work, the Ld. Presiding Officer must have overlooked this fact regarding payment of cost, and gone ahead and disposed of the O.A. on the basis of no written statement being filed. In view of the fact that the written statement was actually filed, the impugned order seems to be faulty and needs to be interfered with in appeal. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the D.R.T.-I, Mumbai for fresh consideration after looking into the contentions raised in the written statement filed by Defendant and fresh orders be passed. Liberty is given to the parties to file fresh affidavits.
