LUCKY AND CO Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. P. Thiagarajan, Advocate for the appellants is present. MR. Srinath Sridevan, Advocate for the 1st respondent Bank is present.

(2.) Heard both sides. This appeal is filed by the appellants/Original Judgment debtors being aggrieved by the order dated 9.3.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Chennai, in MA-23/2002 in OA-357/2001. By the impugned Order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants/defendants herein, for setting aside the Order passed in the OA by the Presiding Officer under Section 31 -A of the RDDB&FI Act, 1993.

(3.) AS such, what are the grievances of the appellants? The appellants' Advocate says that he is to be heard on this point whether the particular property was available or not. This point can be certainly agitated before the Recovery Officer and not before the Presiding Officer. He further states that his client is willing for settlement. Now this proposal can be submitted by approaching the Bank directly. So, the appellants want nothing but to protract the litigation. This is the only legitimate inference that can be drawn. I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, following order is passed.