Ramendra Jain , J. - (1.) By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of orders dated 03.07.2015 (Annexure P-21) and 19.08.2015 (Annexure P-23) passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for short 'DRAT').
(2.) Briefly stated, the respondent bank had filed Original Application (O.A.) against M/s Oriental Motors, G.T. Road, Bathinda. The petitioner and her mother Ms. Gurtej Kaur (now deceased) were also impleaded as respondents in the said case. Vide judgment dated 12.06.2002 (Annexure P-1), the said Original Application was accepted for an amount of Rs. 2,15,82,549.79 along with pendente lite and future interest. In the execution proceedings, initiated by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Chandigarh, a proclamation of sale dated 14.11.2005 (Annexure P-2) was issued. The petitioner and her mother filed an objection petition (Annexure P-3) against the said proclamation, which was rejected vide order dated 03.01.2006 (Annexure P-4) by the Recovery Officer, while observing that he had no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree/judgment passed by the Presiding Officer. The said order was challenged by the petitioner and her mother by filing CWP No. 48 of 2006, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.01.2006 (Annexure P-5) with liberty to them to take recourse to an appropriate remedy by way of appeal against the aforesaid order dated 03.01.2006. It was ordered that if such an appeal is preferred within one week, the sale, proposed to be held in terms of the proclamation of sale dated 14.11.2005 shall not be confirmed till appropriate orders are passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal, proposed to be filed. Accordingly, the petitioner and her mother filed appeal (Annexure P-11). During the pendency of the appeal, upon an application of the petitioner, vide order dated 08.12.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chandigarh, Balraj Singh (respondent No.2 herein), the auction purchaser, who had purchased the property was permitted to be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal. Thereafter, respondent No.2 auction purchaser filed written statement dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure P-13) in the said appeal. The petitioner and her mother filed written submissions dated 05.12.2011 (Annexure P-14). Ultimately, vide order dated 17.02.2012 (Annexure P-15), the Presiding Officer, DRT II, Chandigarh, dismissed the aforesaid appeal against the order dated 03.01.2006. Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.02.2012, the petitioner and her mother filed appeal (Annexure P-17) before the DRAT. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed two applications No. 258 of 2013 and 192 of 2015 (Annexures P-18.
(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid appeal along with the above noted interlocutory applications was listed for hearing before the DRAT on 02.07.2015. On that day, Mr. J.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner reached New Delhi for appearing before DRAT, but on account of strike by DRAT Bar Association, he had very serious apprehension about strong adverse reaction from the members of the DRAT Bar Association who had assembled there in strength and were asking the Advocates not to appear before the DRAT due to strike call given by them. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner filed written submissions (Annexure P-20) with the office of the Registrar of the DRAT. The appeal of the petitioner was adjourned to 03.07.2015. The DRAT Bar Association had extended the strike call, which continued on 03.07.2015 and for some more days. Due to the above compelling circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner could not physically appear before the DRAT. Resultantly, vide order dated 03.07.2015 (Annexure P-21), appeal of the petitioner along with both the aforesaid interlocutory applications was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application dated 20.07.2015 (Annexure P-22) for re-calling the said order. However, vide order dated 19.08.2015 (Annexure P-23), the said application of the petitioner was also dismissed.;