G THULASI Vs. DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the guarantor for the packing credit advance availed by the principal borrower from the respondent bank on 16.8.1994 to a tune of Rs.15 lakhs carrying interest at 13% p.a. Apart from four properties belonging to the borrower having been mortgaged for the said advance, one property of the petitioner being a guarantor was also given in mortgage. For the failure of repayment of advance amount by the principal borrower, the bank approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal and obtained an exparte decree dated 3.5.1999 for a sum of Rs.21,12,714/- together with interest. THEreafter, the properties were attached on 06.08.2002 including the fifth item belonging to the petitioner and publication of sale notice was issued on 13.07.2003. THE sale was effected on 14.8.2003 and thereafter, it was confirmed and the sale certificate was also issued on 18.9.2003.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed an application on 1.9.2003 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to set aside the sale, on the following grounds:

(3.) IT is seen from the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal that the notice indicating the date of hearing as 17.02.1998 was served on the writ petitioner on 19.01.1998. The petitioner failed to appear on that date before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner was, in fact, set ex parte only on 13.03.1998 and subsequently, an ex parte final order was passed on 03.05.1999. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, considering the above factual aspect, held that in spite of service of notice on 19.01.1998, the petitioner had allowed the Debts Recovery Tribunal to pass an ex parte order and thereafter, ex parte decree, almost after one year and four months and the petitioner had not taken any steps to represent before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. This finding of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal needs no interference, as it is after the service of notice, the petitioner has failed to appear before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Hence, the first contention is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Point No. II: