SPECIALITY WIRE PRODUCTS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) APPLICANT has filed this application for setting aride the ex pane order by taking recourse of Section 22(2) of the Recovery of the Debts Dae to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, in short, The RDDBFI Act, on the following grounds:
1. Opponent had filed Special Civil Suit No. 8 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Godhra against the applicant. The suit was filed by the opponent for recovery of the dues against the applicant. The suit was decided ex pane on 3.8.1993. Thereafter, The RDDBFI Act came to be passed. Since the opponent had not executed the decree the matter was filed in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. It was registered and numbered as Original Application 158 of 1996. The said application was filed for issuance of the Recovery Certificate as per the provision of The RDDBFI Act. Notices were not issued and/or served on the applicant. The matter was decided ex parte in the absence of the applicant. The judgment/order dated 23.9.1997 is, therefore, not binding on the applicant. The applicant came to know about the ex parte judgment when the show-cause notice was issued to him in the proceedings before the Recovery Officer. It is the case of the applicant that if the ex parte, decree is not set aside he would suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is, therefore, prayed that the application be allowed as prayed for.
(2.) The opponent has filed reply at Exh. R/10. It is denied that the applicant had no knowledge of the proceedings before Civil Judge (SD), Godhra. It is also denied that the applicant had no knowledge about the Original Application No. 158 of 1996 before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. In fact, the notice was issued to the applicant. The applicant had not appeared in spite of notice. The claim affidavit in the Original Application No. 158 of 1996 was served on the applicant. The Original Application was decided on 23.9.1997. This application was filed on 7.9.2001. There is delay of about four years. The ex parte decree cannot be set aside after the lapse of four years. It is, therefore, prayed that the application of the applicant be dismissed with costs.
Heard learned Advocate for the applicant in support of the application.
(3.) ADVOCATE for the opponent remained absent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.