As per case facts, the Petitioner challenged a DRAT order requiring a pre-deposit for an appeal against a DRT order. The DRT order had dismissed the Petitioner's applications to implead ... an auction purchaser and amend a Securitisation Application to challenge the bank's sale of mortgaged property, citing inordinate delay. The Petitioner contended they were not a 'borrower' and the DRT order was merely procedural, hence no pre-deposit. This Writ Petition, initially dismissed by the High Court, was remanded by the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the DRT's common order was procedural, exempting the Petitioner from mandatory pre-deposit under the SARFAESI Act, and whether the Petitioner qualified as a 'borrower'. Finally, the High Court, on remand, confirmed the Petitioner as a 'borrower' due to being a mortgagor on registered deeds, rejecting fraud claims. The Court ruled the DRT's order was a substantive adjudication on delay and refusal to unsettle crystallized third-party rights, not procedural. Emphasizing Section 18's "any order" broadly covers all DRT orders, the mandatory pre-deposit was upheld. Due to the Petitioner's significant delay and irreversible third-party interests created, the High Court declined equitable jurisdiction, dismissing the Writ Petition.