Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Surinder Paul and Ors vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 8 May 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 32 of 2019 Union Bank of India
Vs.
Surinder Paul
08.05.2019 Item No.16
Present: None for the Applicant.
This Application has been filed by the Applicant/Defendant for setting aside Judgement dt.25.02.2019 and RC dated 26.02.2019.
The Applicant has pleaded that by the time the defendants reached the Tribunal on 25.02.2019, the case had been proceeded ex parte even though the WS was ready with Def. No.1. Thereafter the defendant engaged counsel and applied for certified copy of Judgement and Recovery Certificate dt.26.02.2019 which was received on 30.03.2019 and thus prayed that the above ex parte order be recalled.
Before the prayer of the Applicant could be considered, it has been found that upon service, Applicant/Def. No.1 Surinder Paul had appeared in person for himself and for Def. Nos.2 and 3 and was directed to file WS while adjourning the matter for 25.02.2019 on which date neither representative nor the Applicant/Def. in person came forward nor filed WS, hence the Applicant/Defendants were set ex parte. Meaning thereby that the Applicant/Defendants were aware of the pendency of the case before this court and had sufficient time to answer the plantiff’s claim but they failed to appear on the said date without assigning any sufficient reason. Since the Applicant/Defendant knew about the pending case but still ignored and if he had reached the court, may be late, he could have requested on the same very date but failed to do so. had sufficient time to appear before this court and failed to prove on record that what prevented him from appearing, his plea cannot be accepted. Hence, the MA devoid of merit is dismissed.
MA dismissed. File be consigned to record.
(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh 08.05.2019/cms