A K VERMA Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.7.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') declining the request of the appellant (who was 3rd defendant before the DRT in O.A. 45/95) to set aside the ex parte final order passed on 18.6.98.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant/3rd defendant contends that the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, after having sent the notice to the appellant/3rd defendant at the Faridabad address, and on noticing that the envelope containing the notice/summons sent to him had not returned, deemed that the appellant/3rd defendant was served with the notice/summons are set him ex parte on 11.6.96 and ultimately passed the ex parte final order on 18.6.98. THE learned Counsel for the appellant/3rd defendant also points out that in support of his contention that the appellant/3rd defendant had shifted to Raipur, he had filed a communication from Haryana Financial Corporation dated 11.8.95 which was sent to the appellant/3rd defendant to his Raipur address. But, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT in this impugned order observed that this lone document cannot be accepted as a reliable evidence, and that even the original of the said document had not been filed.