Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Mal Singh vs AXIS BANK on 21 September 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.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I CHANDIGARH
MA 58 of 2019 Axis Bank Vs. Mal Singh & Anr.
21.09.2019
Item No.40
Advocate: Sh. RS Kakar, Counsel for the Applicant Bank.
This Application has been filed by the Defendant for setting aside ex parte order dt.31.01.2019 whereby defendants were proceeded ex parte and for allowing the defendants to defend their case.
The Counsel for the Applicants/Defendants has argued that they knew about the OA pending from the Applicant Bank and that the notice directed to be served through publication was never served as directed nor the service report through publication along with postal receipts have been placed on record by the Bank. Moreover, no dast service has been made upon the defendants and that the affidavit filed about dasti service is silent. Hence, the Counsel for the Applicants/Defendants has prayed that the order dt.31.01.2019 be recalled.
I have heard counsel for the Applicants/Defendants and peruse dth erecord.
It has been found that Notice in this case was issued on 21.05.2018 to be returned by 17.08.2018 for which service report has been filed by the Resp./Applicant OA Bank on an affidavit of one Sh. Deepanshu Soni, Asstt. Manager whereby the defendants were served through registered post for which postal receipts dt.21.07.2018 have been placed on record. It has been stated that when the deponent visited the premises of the defendants to serve summons dasti, defendants refused to receive the summons. Thereafer, notices were published in the newspapers which is not only notice to the general public but also to the defendants. Once the defendants were served through registered post and refused dasti service, which was subsequently served through publication the service is complete.
Since the Applicants/Defendants themselves have admitted that they had operated the account and withdrew the amount on 30.04.2019, it indicates that they were in touch with the Resp./Applicant OA Bank and it cannot be
presumed that they had no knowledge of the proceedings as they were also served through registered post as well as through publication.
We are satisfied that Applicants/Defendants were aware and had knowledge of pendency of suit and had sufficient time to apper 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).
Hence, finding no merit, the MA is dismissed. File be consigned to record. (Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh 21.09.2019/cms