Cross-examination under DRT procedure may be ordered where affidavit evidence must be tested for fair adjudication.

Rule 12(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 allows affidavit evidence but also preserves a limited right to seek cross-examination where the Tribunal is satisfied that the witness can be produced and oral testing is necessary for sufficient recorded reasons. The discretion must be exercised on relevant factors, including disputed documents, the need to test affidavit evidence, and whether effective adjudication requires oral evidence. On the stated facts, serious disputes about document production, movement of goods, and the basis of liability made cross-examination of the bank manager necessary, so the refusal to allow it was erroneous.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Rule 12(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, the borrower was entitled to have the bank manager produced for cross-examination in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Rule 12(6) permits evidence by affidavit and confers a limited but real right to seek cross-examination where the Tribunal is satisfied that the witness can be produced and that it is necessary to do so for sufficient reasons to be recorded. The provision is to be construed as a procedural rule designed to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power is discretionary, but the discretion is controlled and must be exercised on relevant considerations, including the nature of the dispute, the existence of disputed documents, the necessity of testing the affidavit evidence, and whether effective adjudication requires oral cross-examination. On the facts, there was a serious controversy regarding non-production of documents, the bank's own affidavit stated that no further documents were in its possession, and the pleadings raised substantial disputes about the movement and handling of the goods and the basis of liability. In that setting, the request to cross-examine the bank manager could not be rejected as unnecessary.

Conclusion: The refusal to permit cross-examination was erroneous, and the borrower was entitled to cross-examine the bank manager.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the procedural request was allowed so that the dispute could be adjudicated fully and fairly in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Rule 12(6), cross-examination may be ordered when the Tribunal records sufficient reasons that the witness can be produced and that oral testing of affidavit evidence is necessary for a just determination; the discretion must be exercised to further natural justice and effective adjudication.

---