PARRY MOULDINGS Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are defendants 1 to 3 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRT') in Q.A. 410/1999 filed by the respondent Bank for the recovery of the debt due to it from the appellants/ defendants. On 26.9.2001, the DRT passed the ex pane final order in view of the failure of the appellants/defendants to appear and pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/- already imposed by the DRT on appellants/defendants 1 to 3. THE appellants/defendants filed an application to set aside the said ex pane final order urging that though the Counsel for the appellants/ defendants had informed them that the date of hearing was 26.9.2001, the 2nd defendant, who was attending to the case, mistook the date as 28.9.2001 and, therefore, he could not appear on 26.9.2001 before the DRT. THE further case of the appellants/defendants is that the Counsel for the appellants/defendants had informed the 2nd defendant that on 26.9.2001 he (Counsel) would not be appearing before the DRT, but he will have to appear in person and pay the cost. That is how the absence of the appellants/defendants and their Counsel is explained.

(2.) The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT took note of the past conduct of the appellants/defendants and held that the appellants/defendants did not appear intentionally. Accordingly, he dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/ defendants have come forward with this appeal.

(3.) AFTER hearing the Counsel for both the sides, and perusing the records, I am of the view that the appellants herein should be given an opportunity to have the case decided on merits. The ex parte final order was passed due to their absence on 26.9.2001. The Counsel for the respondent-Bank contends that even on an earlier occasion, the appellants/defendants were proceeded ex pane on 4.7.2000, but the appellants/defendants did not even file an application to set aside that order immediately. According to him, the application to set aside that order was filed after the delay of 8 or 9 months and the ex parte order was set aside on 23.8.2001 imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. He further points out that this direction was not even complied with and now the plea taken is that there was a mistake as to the date of hearing. The learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank, therefore, contends that the conduct of the appellants/defendants clearly shows that they have been negligent and their intention is to drag on the proceedings as much as possible. He, therefore, contends that the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT was justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellants /defendants.