RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. TAMIL NADU MERCANTILE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.A. Nos. 15, 16 and 17/2003 (dated 7.3.2003) in TA 2150/2002 have been filed by the petitioner/defendant. In M.A. 16/ 2003 the petitioner has prayed for advance hearing from 24.3.2003 to any other convenient date. The petitioner has filed other M.A. Nos. 15 and 17/2003 for withdrawing the Recovery Certificate issued by this Tribunal in R.P. No. 3/2003 in DRC No. 1/2003 and to stay the operation of the proceedings pending before the Recovery Officer till the final disposal of these applications and also I.As. (Dated 10.6.2002) to set aside the ex parte order dated 17.11.1999 and for condonation of delay of 126 days.

(2.) The petitioner herein and D-1 in the Original Application has solemnly affirmed in a Common Affidavit that due to pre-occupation with other matter, he was not able to appear before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 17.11.1999 and due to his non-appearance, he has been set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed against him by the Hon'ble Tribunal on 17.11.1999. He has further submitted that he has not received any intimation either from this Hon'ble Tribunal or from his Advocate at Chennai, with regard to the ex parte decree passed. Subsequently when he came to know about the ex parte decree, he filed 2 IAs. i.e, IA No. 672/2002 (filed on 1.7.2002) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 176 days in filing the petition and I.A. No. 673 of 2002 for netting aside the ex parte decree before DRT-II, Chennai. After filing these applications, he was under the impression that he will be intimated either by the Tribunal or by his Advocate. But the entire case bundle was transferred to Hon'ble DRT at Coimbatore, for which no intimation has been served upon him either in person or through Post. Until he received the notice from the Recovery Officer, he did not know about the transfer of case. He has further submitted that without the disposal of IAs for setting aside the ex parte decree Hon'ble Tribunal has referred the matter to the Recovery Officer. He came to know about the transfer of case, only when Recovery Certificate was served upon him for hearing on 21.2.2003. Immediately after verifying the records before Hon'ble Tribunal, he came to understand that the Hon'ble Tribunal, without disposing of his application has referred the case to the Recovery Officer. He has further submitted that he has already given proposal for setting the matter as early as on 21.1.2002, for which he has not received any intimation from the respondents. Therefore, he has prayed that if the Recovery Officer will proceed further as per the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal, he will be put in irreparable injury and heavy loss. Unless the operation of the proceedings before Recovery Officer is stayed till the disposal of the application, his right will be prejudiced. Hence, he has prayed for stay of the proceedings of the Recovery Officer till the disposal of the application. Common Affidavit has also been filed in support of other applications, so its contents need not be recapitulated here.

(3.) THE points for consideration are: