SAROJA AMMAL Vs. INDIAN BANK
LAWS(DR)-2003-1-11
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 17,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.Subbulakshmy, - (1.)FINAL order was passed in the Original Application (OA) on 31.3.1999. The appellant is defendant No. 5 in the OA. The appellant filed petition before DRT-II, Chennai, to condone the delay of 249 days in setting aside the ex parte decree dated 31.3.1999 and that was dismissed by the Tribunal. The appeals are preferred against that order as passed dismissing the IAs (IA-875/02 to condone the delay of 249 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 31.3.1999, IA 876/02 to stay the auction under DRC-112/2001 and MA-2/2002 to set aside the ex parte final order dated 31.3.1999).
(2.)Counsel for the appellant submits that D-5 never mortgaged her property to the respondent Bank and she is not at all concerned with the borrowing and she never gave her title deeds and no notice was also served on her and she came to know about the ex parte decree only in the year 2001 when she received the attachment order on 27.12.2001 and then she filed petition to set aside the ex parte decree with a petition to condone the delay.
A perusal of the records shows that the appellant was set ex parte and final order was passed on 31.3.1999. It was argued by the Counsel for the respondent Bank that the appellant refused to receive the summons and the postman made the endorsement that she refused to receive the cover. Substituted service was also effected in the Newspaper. The records were perused. The returned covers reveal that the appellant refused to receive it and the covers were returned to the sender. It is evident from the records that the appellant refused to receive the cover and so substituted service was effected. Refusal of the summons also amounts to good service. Anyhow, substituted service was also effected. So, it is clear that the appellant having known about the service of the summons did not receive the summons and wantonly absented herself. Further, even from her own petition it is seen that she received the attachment order on 27.12.2001 but the appellant filed petition to set aside the ex parte order on 3.9.2002. The reason given by the petitioner for the delay is that due to ill-health and age and also due to illiteracy for approaching the Counsel she did not prefer the appeal in time. The Presiding Officer, DRT-II, has found that the reasons stated by the appellant are not acceptable one and even after receipt of the attachment order the petitioner has not filed the petition in time and she filed it after a delay of 249 days and each day's delay has not been properly explained and accordingly the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, dismissed that petition.

(3.)ON a perusal of the records it is crystal clear that appellant refused to receive the summons and publication by substituted service was also effected and she also received the attachment Order on 27.12.2001. Immediately, she did not file the application in time and she filed it on 3.9.2002. Even after receipt of the attachment order, she filed the application after a delay of more than 8 months. Viewed at any angle, it is clear that the appellant was not at all taking any effective steps for preferring the appeal to set aside the ex parte order in time and she wantonly and wilfully neglected the matter and she has filed the petition with an inordinate delay of 249 days. There is no valid and sufficient reason given in the petition for condoning the delay. The conduct of the appellant throughout shows her lethargic attitude and wilfulness in not attending the Court and also by not receiving the summons. There is no justifiable ground at all for condoning the delay of 249 days. The Presiding Officer, DRT-II, rightly dismissed the petition. I see no ground to interfere in the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai. Appeal MA-257/2002 dismissed.


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