Arun Tandon - (1.) PETITIONERS before this Court had admittedly taken loan from the respondent bank. It is further apparent from the records that they had committed default in repayment of the same. This resulted in original suit being filed by the bank against the loanee as early as in the year 1996. The total amount subject-matter of the suit was Rs. 86,06,818.
(2.) THE writ petitioners participated in the civil suit proceedings. It took seven adjournment on their behalf before written statement could be filed on 28.10.1997. THE case was again adjourned successively for framing issues. It appears that the suit was transferred with the establishment of Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur and then to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Allahabad. One of the defendant in the suit namely Shamti Devi expired A substitution application was made and respondent Nos. 8 to 10 were added as proforma respondent. When the matter was pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal Allahabad, an order was passed for fresh notice being issued to respondents. On 13th July, 2001 it was reported that the process has been received back unserved. The Debt Recovery Tribunal therefore directed for fresh steps being taken through publication in newspaper. Accordingly, a publication was made in the newspaper qua the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings. Even thereafter the defendants did not appear before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad and therefore on 27.11.2001 an order was passed for matter being ex parte proceeded against the defendant. On 7th February, 2002 the Debt Recovery Tribunal was constituted at Lucknow and the matter was directed to be transferred to the Lucknow Tribunal with the direction upon the parties to appear there on 11.3.2002. The defendant had not put in appearance before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Allahabad up to that date. The notification, transferring the cases from Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow was subject-matter of challenge before this Court in a writ petition, wherein transfer of the case was stayed. The matter was therefore proceeded at Allahabad and after adjournment on various dates ex parte arguments were heard on 29.4.2002 and judgment was announced.
(3.) AN application for recall of the ex parte order was filed on 2.4.2003 by the petitioner, which was dismissed under the order dated 30.10.2006. Against the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, being Appeal No. R 773 of 2007. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under the impugned order has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India ; (2007) 8 SCC 449 : 2007 (4) AWC 3761 (SC). It has recorded reasons for holding that the petitioners before this Court and who were defendants in the proceedings before the Tribunal had full knowledge of the said proceedings and they have deliberately not appeared. It has specifically been stated that the non-participation of the writ petitioners, and ex parte order being made in the facts of the case was only because of the deliberate intention of the petitioners not to contest the proceedings/delay the same. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has therefore held that in the facts of the case no interference was required. The order is challenged before this Court on the ground that the matter was directed to be transferred to Lucknow Tribunal and thereafter re-heard at Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad itself without notice, to do so, being issued to the petitioners. Therefore, the ex parte order was liable to be recalled. A copy of the application made by the petitioners for recall of the ex parte order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition.;