BANK OF INDIA Vs. KONARK POULTRY P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. R.C Das, the learned Advocate appears for the applicant Bank.

(2.) As claimed earlier, the present application has been, in fact, an application for the issuance of a Certificate under Sub-section (2) of Section 31-A, which lies in contradistinction with a Certificate to be issued under Sub-section (22) of Section 19 of the said Act. On May 10, the same defendants made further application after admitting themselves as the guarantors in the loan transaction. That application was filed before the learned transferring Tribunal at Patna giving rise to AO No. 60/1990. Both the applications as above are on the self-same cause of action. This Tribunal should, as the ordinary man of prudence normally understands, highlight the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Act No. V of 1908].

(3.) THE defendant Nos. 5 to 7 might have preferred the appeal against the ex pane judgment and order, which has been pronounced on October 8, 1996 against themselves. Instead of filing the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), they have done nothing. Neither of the defendants has paid to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 1,79,21,041-15 p, with PI and FI.