JUDGEMENT
Miscellaneous Appeal 244/2000 and Miscellaneous Application 137/2002 -
(1.)HEARD learned Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.7.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') declining the request of the appellant (who was 3rd defendant before the DRT in O.A. 45/95) to set aside the ex parte final order passed on 18.6.98.
The contention of the appellant/3rd defendant is that he was not served with the summons/notice in the O.A. but he came to know of the proceedings in the O.A. on 15.12.99 when he went to the respondent-Bank and met an official of the Bank, who showed him the copy of the ex parte final order. The learned Counsel for the appellanl/3rd defendant contends that the appellant/3rd defendant had filed the application dated 11.1.2000 i.e., within 30 days from the date of knowledge, before the DRT to set aside the ex parte final order. The learned Counsel for the appellant/3rd defendant also contends that the appellant/ 3rd defendant has specifically pleaded in his application before the DRT that the appellant/ 3rd defendant was not living at House No. 1770/9, Faridabad, which was the address given in the O.A., but he had shifted to Raipur (Madhya Pradesh) somewhere in 1994 itself and, therefore, he had not been served with the notice/summons in the O.A.
(3.)THE learned Counsel for the appellant/3rd defendant contends that the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, after having sent the notice to the appellant/3rd defendant at the Faridabad address, and on noticing that the envelope containing the notice/summons sent to him had not returned, deemed that the appellant/3rd defendant was served with the notice/summons are set him ex parte on 11.6.96 and ultimately passed the ex parte final order on 18.6.98. THE learned Counsel for the appellant/3rd defendant also points out that in support of his contention that the appellant/3rd defendant had shifted to Raipur, he had filed a communication from Haryana Financial Corporation dated 11.8.95 which was sent to the appellant/3rd defendant to his Raipur address. But, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT in this impugned order observed that this lone document cannot be accepted as a reliable evidence, and that even the original of the said document had not been filed.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.