As per case facts, Petitioners in two separate Original Applications challenged DRT orders which struck off their defense or proceeded ex-parte against them, influenced by a DRAT order. The DRAT's ... order directed Debt Recovery Tribunals to quickly pass final orders once a defense was struck off, leading to mechanical judgments without requiring banks to prove their claims on merits. The reason for the Writ Petitions was to quash this DRAT order and the subsequent DRT orders that violated principles of natural justice. The central legal question was whether the statutory time limit for filing written statements is mandatory or directory, and if DRTs can pass judgments without banks proving their cases when defense is struck off. Finally, the High Court determined that the provisions for filing written statements are directory, not mandatory, and mechanical judgments without requiring evidence are contrary to law and natural justice. Both the DRAT and DRT orders were quashed, and cases remanded for petitioners to file written statements and for proceedings to continue as per law.