M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 14.10.2003 passed by Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi Whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for review/ recall of the order dated 5.9.2001. It appears that the respondent -Bank filed Title Mortgage Suit No. 109 of 1986 in the Court of Sub -Judge -I, Dhanbad against the defendants/respondents including father of the petitioners. The said suit was dismissed for default on 6.12.1996. The respondent -Bank filed restoration application, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 6 of 1996. During the pendency of the restoration application defendant No. 5 now deceased died on 28.3.2000. The respondent -Bank filed petition on 30.11.2000 for substitution of legal representatives of the deceased/defendant. In the meantime, the suit and restoration proceeding was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The respondent -Bank also filed amendment petition for amending case title of restoration petition. The substitution petition was allowed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 5.9.2001. Petitioner who are the substituted heirs of defendant No. 5 filed petition on 22.7.2003 for recall or setting aside the order dated 5.9.2001 which has been heard and dismissed by the impugned order.
(3.) MR . R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed substitution petition and the amendment petition on 5.9.2001 without giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners have no knowledge about the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and no substitution could have been made when the suit and the restoration application stood abated.;