Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
GOVIND AUTO CENTRE vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 19 June 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 24 of 2019 State Bank of India Vs. M/s Govind Auto Centre & 2 Ors.
19.06.2019 Item No.2
Present: Sh. Shubham Pabbi, Counsel for the Applicant/ Defendants.
The Counsel for the Applicant/Defendants has filed this Application for setting aside ex parte order dt.08.05.2019, judgement dt.09.05.2019 and RC issued thereto.
The counsel for the Applicants/Defendants argued that the Resp./Applicant Bank had mentioned its own address on the envelop sent to Def. No.2 which was not served to Def. No.3 despite that the notices were required to be sent by DRT-I, Chandigarh. It has also been argued that Def. No.3 had never received any notice from this Tribunal either through post or dast at any point of time. He further stressed that the bank did not disclose the correct address and never ever attempted to serve the Def. No.3 at his present address. As per service report filed by the Bank, Def. No.3 was served through post but the Bank failed to provide detail of service through dasti to any of the defendands as neither any Officer ever visited the house of the Defendants to serve nor the defendants were served by way of substitute mode of service. Hence, the counsel for the Applicant/Defendants prayed that the orders be recalled.
I have heard counsel for the Applicants/Defendants and perused the record.
During the couse of arguments, the counsel projected that he has filed this Application only on behalf of Def. No.3 which was factually incorrect as the counsel for the applicant/ Defendants in head note himself has written word “defendants”. Not only this affidavits have been filed by Vash Vashishat Def. No.2 and Ram Chander Vashisht Def. No.3 also. Meaning thereby that the application has been filed on behalf of all the defendants.
The counsel for the Applicants/Defendants argued that Def. No.2 was not served dasti but was served through registered post only. Perusal of the record shows that notices were directed to be served vide order dt.20.02.2019 to be served by way of registered to be returned by 08.05.2019. The service report filed by the Bank on Affidavit by Sh.Gurmeet Singh Chadha, Dy. Manager reveals that the Def. No.2 had received the summons dasti for himself and for Def. No.1 and 3 also duly under his signatures. The summons were also sent through registered post, postal receipts of which were placed on record. On comparing the signatures of Def. no. 2 on receipt of summons and on the Vakalatnama filed with the application, it has been observed that both the signatures apparantly appear as of the same person. Hence, dasti service is duly complete. Moreover, the Applicants/Defendants have themselves admitted service through registered post. Since the address of the defendants on the notices, i.e., Village and Post Office Nangal Kalan, Tehsil Haroli, Distt. Una (HP) and on the application and affidavits filed along with the application now filed is the same, hence it cannot be presumed that they had not received registered post. Moreover, the Applicants/Defendants have failed to prove that at any point of time they have informed the bank about the change of address fo any of the defendants as they have not produced any document on record. Perusal of the record shows that it is not the case that the Applicants/Defendants were not in the knowledge of hearing rather it is an admitted case that the Applicants/Defendants, particularly Def. No.2 was aware and had knowledge of pendency of suit and had sufficient time to appesr before the court. Moreover, the Applicants/Defendants have failed to prove that what prevented them to appear before the court. In such a case where the Applicants/Defendants having due knowledge of the pendency of the suit but still ignore the litigation, the Court cannot think of granting any relief to them. The law is otherwise very much clear as is crystalised by Hon’ble High Court in case of Ajita Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma (1999(1) Civil Court Cases 363 (P&H) and that by the Hon’ble DRAT in Swaran Singh Vs. Bank of Baroda (Appeal No.322 of 2019).
Since the Misc. Application is nothing else but another attempt to linger on the matter, the same is dismissed being devoid of merits.
MA dismissed. File be consigned to record.
(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh 19.06.2019/cms