Anju vs UCO Bank on 10 May 2019

MA No.27/19 In OA No.3976/17 UCO Bank Vs Smt. Anju

10.05.2019 Item No.1 Present: None for the applicant/defendant

This Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant/defendant for setting aside/recalling order dated 26.03.2018 whereby the applicant/defendant was proceeded exparte and further for setting aside exparte decree/recovery certificate dated 31.03.2018 and with further prayer for allowing the applicant/defendant to file the written statement and to contest the original application. None appeared on behalf of applicant/defendant to argue the matter. There is no request either for pass over or for adjournment even after 3rd pass over. I have perused the record and it has been found that the applicant/defendant has prayed for recalling the order dated 26.03.2018 whereby the defendants were proceeded exparte and RC was issued on 31.03.2018. The counsel for the applicant/defendant has pleaded that the applicant/defendant was very much present in the Tribunal after receiving the notice on the said date i.e 18.01.2018. But since the opposite counsel of the bank alongiwth other counsels was present in the premises informed him the A.R is on official tour and no proceedings will take place today, therefore applicant/defendant went back and thereafter the applicant/defendant never received any notice from this Tribunal. The counsel for the applicant/defendant has further pleaded that since the husband of the defendant is died in September 2018 due to which the applicant/defendant remained under depression and trauma and remained bed ridden for the last six months and she could not approach the court. On the basis of pleading, it has been found that the applicant/defendant was having knowledge of proceedings pending in this Tribunal being duly served as per service report filed by the bank by way of affidavit of Shri Anand Raj, Sr. Manager, UCO Bank, Abohar, District Fazilka, whereby the applicant bank has informed that the applicant/defendant was served duly acknowledged, and the applicant/defendant who was well within the knowledge of the date of proceedings in this Tribunal also admitted that she visited the premises but could not attend the proceedings on given wrong information. Applicant has failed to justify that once if she was being informed then why she was not appeared on 18.01.2018 & 01.03.2018 when the matter was taken up before the learned Assistant registrar. Not only this she neither enquired nor took any pain to get the status of her case which was thereafter adjourned to 26.03.2018. Even on that date she was not present, thereafter after going through these facts which are duly proved on record, it has been found that applicant/defendant is having the knowledge of all the proceedings the date fixed but did not choose to appears despite having sufficient time and now choose to approach this Tribunal on the ground that applicant/defendant has not received notice after 18.01.2018 which is not required to be issued afresh and has nothing except intention to delay the process of recovery which itself reflects from the conduct of the applicant/defendant. Hence after being duly satisfied with the documents placed on record and in the light of established law, the grounds mentioned in the MA are not sufficient to prove the bonafide on merit. Therefore MA stands dismissed on the basis of pleadings. File be consigned to record.

(Harcharn Singh),

Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh Rajinder 10.05.2019