K K OVERSEAS PVT LTD Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein are the defendants in O.A. 1113/95 before Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as DRT). An ex parte final order was passed against the appellants on 21.6.2001. THE appellants filed an application to set aside the said ex parte final order, which was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his order dated 4.12.2001. Aggrieved, the defendants have come forward with this appeal. A suitable reply has been filed by the respondent-Bank opposing this appeal.

(2.) Heard Counsels for both the sides and perused the records.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants further contends that the notice dated 17.5.2001 allegedly sent by the previous Counsel was not at all received by the appellants, and the said notice appears to have been sent deliberately to a wrong address. THE learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the alleged notice is stated to have been sent to No. 260, Phase-IV, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon and No. 2055, Sector-IV, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, whereas, the appellants are neither owners nor residents of those premises. THE learned Counsel or the appellants under these circumstances, contends that there is no proof to show that such a notice was served on the appellants, and in the absence of such proof and in these circumstances, the appellants should have been given an opportunity to defend the case, and the ex parte final order should have been set aside. THE learned Counsel for the appellants also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Narahari v. Nandakumar, (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 529, in support of his contention that where the Advocate had derelicted his duty to inform the client by the registered post, if there was non-cooperation from the appellants, the ex parte decree should be set aside.