B VENKAT RAO Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE DRT, Hyderabad, decreed the O.A. 460/1999. THE appellant filed M. A. 54/2002 to set aside the ex parte order and that was dismissed by the Tribunal. As against that order the appeal has been preferred.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submits that no summons was served on the appellant in the OA and the PO, DRT, has passed order ex parte and natural justice has been denied to, the appellant and so the ex parte order has to be set aside. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that he came to know about the ex parte order only after seeing the publication issued by the Recovery Officer in the DRT, Hyderabad, for auction sale and immediately he filed the petition to set aside the ex parte order and without his knowledge and notice the ex parte order was passed. Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that there was proper service of summons and the appellant did not appear before the Court and the appellant was set ex parte and the order passed by the PO, DRT, dismissing the petition to set aside the ex parte order is sustainable.

(3.) 1 too perused the entire records and I found that the postal acknowledgement in proof of service of summons to the appellant forms part of the record and that acknowledgement clearly proves that the summons to the appellant was duly served in the O.A. From the acknowledgements filed it is evident that O.A. notice was sent to all the defendants and the notice was duly served on the appellant. So, it is futile on the part of the appellant to contend that there was no service of summons on the appellant and the ex parte order is liable to be set aside. Counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1384, Panna Lal v. Murari Lal, and AIR 1963 Madras 198, Pichai Ammal v. Vellayya Thevar alias Ochu Thevar, and (Vol. LXI) MLJ 931, P.V.M Muhaidin Kader Meera Sahib Maraikkayar v. P.L.S. Lakshmanan Chettiar and Ors.