Decided on February 28,2003



A.Subbulakshmy, - (1.)THE DRT, Hyderabad, decreed the O.A. 460/1999. THE appellant filed M. A. 54/2002 to set aside the ex parte order and that was dismissed by the Tribunal. As against that order the appeal has been preferred.
(2.)Counsel for the appellant submits that no summons was served on the appellant in the OA and the PO, DRT, has passed order ex parte and natural justice has been denied to, the appellant and so the ex parte order has to be set aside. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that he came to know about the ex parte order only after seeing the publication issued by the Recovery Officer in the DRT, Hyderabad, for auction sale and immediately he filed the petition to set aside the ex parte order and without his knowledge and notice the ex parte order was passed. Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that there was proper service of summons and the appellant did not appear before the Court and the appellant was set ex parte and the order passed by the PO, DRT, dismissing the petition to set aside the ex parte order is sustainable.
Originally regarding the suit claim, the Suit in O.S. 191/1992 was filed before the Civil Court. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the Civil Court, Counsel appeared for the defendants and after transfer to the DRT, the transferee Court did not issue any notice to the appellant and without issuing any notice the ex parte order was passed and the ex parte order is liable to be set aside. After the passing of the RDDB & FI Act, 1993, the suit was transferred to DRT, Bangalore. A perusal of the records reveal that the DRT, Bangalore, issued summons to the defendants including the appellant and the defendants were served. The appellant was also served as revealed by the Acknowledgement Due found in the records. The PO, DRT, has also observed in his order that a perusal of the proceedings before the DRT, Bangalore, shows that the summons were sent to the defendants and the proceedings dated 22.7.97 reveal that the summons sent to the defendants 2 and 3 were duly served and hold sufficient and the postal acknowledgement care in proof of service of summons to the 3rd defendant forming part of the record clearly shows that the summons was duly served on the 3rd defendant and the contentions made by the petitioner cannot at all be believed.

(3.)1 too perused the entire records and I found that the postal acknowledgement in proof of service of summons to the appellant forms part of the record and that acknowledgement clearly proves that the summons to the appellant was duly served in the O.A. From the acknowledgements filed it is evident that O.A. notice was sent to all the defendants and the notice was duly served on the appellant. So, it is futile on the part of the appellant to contend that there was no service of summons on the appellant and the ex parte order is liable to be set aside. Counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1384, Panna Lal v. Murari Lal, and AIR 1963 Madras 198, Pichai Ammal v. Vellayya Thevar alias Ochu Thevar, and (Vol. LXI) MLJ 931, P.V.M Muhaidin Kader Meera Sahib Maraikkayar v. P.L.S. Lakshmanan Chettiar and Ors.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.