Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
M/s A.R Enterprises & Ors. vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 5 February 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
MA 4 of 2019 Punjab & Sind Bank
Vs.
M/s AR Enterprises Iron Merchant & Comm. Agent and others
05.02.2019
Item No.6
Present: None for the Applicant.
IA 741 of 2018
The Applicants/Def. Nos. 2 and 4 have filed this Application for condoning the delay of 338 days in filing the Misc. Application for setting aside exparte order/judgement dt.25.11.2017.
The Applicants/Defendants have pleaded that they were proceeded ex parte vide order dt.22.11.2017 and subsequently judgement and decree on 25.11.2017 was passed against them. The Applicants have pleaded that they neither received summons through registered post nor dasti and that the service report submitted by the Bank is fictious. It has been stated that they came to know about the proceedings initiated first time when they received notice issued by Recovery Officer. Thereafter they got verified the record and got all the documents and filed Misc. Application on 28.11.2018 and in the process delay of 338 occurred. The Applicants/Defendants have pleaded that delay should be condoned.
Before prayer of the Applicant could be considered, it has been found that the Applicant has admitted that he came to know about the ex parte order/judgement dt.25.11.2017 when they received the summons from Recovery Officer to appear before him on 29.01.2018. Firstly the Applicants have failed to place on record any evidence as to on which date the summons issued by Recovery Officer were received. Further, it has been found that in the OA filed on 12.10.2015, the notices were issued on 29.01.2016 to be returned by 06.04.2016. Thereafter the Bank has filed Service Report dt.28.09.2016 through Registered Post and dasti. It has been stated that while Registered post did not received back, dasti could not be served as the defendants were not available. Thereafter at the request of the Resp./Applicant Bank the defendants were served by way
of substitute mode of service, i.e., publication for which the service report was filed on 15.11.2017 having served through publication on 09.09.2017. Ultimately on the basis of the service report defendants were set ex parte on 22.11.2017 and thereafter judgement and decree was passed on 25.11.2017. Moreover, the Applicant/Defendant himself has admitted having received the summons issued by Recovery Officer, perusal of which shows that the Recovery Officer had sent the summons on the same address which is on record and the Bank had also sent summons through registered post. It is not digestible that how earlier summons were not received by the Applicants/Defendants when the summons sent by the Recovery Officer on the same address has been received.
Since the Applicant/Defendant was duly served through registered post and through publication which deem to be proper service, the plea of the Applicant/Defendant is not acceptable. Hence, the delay is not condoned. IA dismissed.
MA 4 of 2019
Since the IA for condonation of delay stands dismissed, MA is also disposed of accordingly.
File be consigned to record.
(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh
05.02.2019/CMS