JAGIR SINGH vs PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK on 14 December 2018

MA No.118/18 In OA No.613/18 Punjab Gramin Bank Vs Jagir Singh & Ors.

14.12.2018 Item No.6

Present: Shri Naveen Upadhyay, counsel for the applicant .

This Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant/defendant no.1 for setting aside exparte order dated 15.10.2018 and exparte judgment dated 16.10.2018, allowing application of the applicant bank. Prayer of the applicant in this application is that he received the summons and put its appearance through his counsel as per the summons before this Tribunal on 27.08.2018 but did not receive copy of the OA alongwith all the annexure attached with the application filed by the applicant bank which could help him to file reply. He has further argued that he had noted the next date of appearance as 15.11.2018 instead of 15.10.2018 this could be the reason WS could not be filed and defendants declared exparte on 15.10.2018, therefore, order dated 15.10.2018 be recalled. I have heard the counsel for the applicant/defendant no.1. Before the prayer of the applicant/defendant no.1 could be considered, I have perused the record and it has been found that the prayer for “setting aside’ is misconceived as there is no “exparte” order. In fact applicant bank has filed this OA for recovery of more than Rs.19.00 lakh on 28.03.2018 and notices were issued upon defendants on 09.05.2018 to be returned by 27.08.2018. Upon receiving notice the defendants appeared through his counsel who filed its POA vide diary no.9579 dated 27.08.2018 and despite giving 30 days time to file WS vide order dated 09.05.2018 the defendants had not filed WS and matter was adjourned to 15.10.2018 for filing WS. On 15.10.2018 despite calling the matter number of time neither WS filed nor anyone appeared on behalf of defendants, hence their right to file WS was closed vide order dated 15.10.2018 and not declared the defendants exparte, order is reproduced below: ………Despite giving sufficient time and opportunity the defendants after being appeared and putting their appearance on 27.08.2018 before learned A.R. through counsel who filed its POA vide diary no.9579 dated 27.08.2018 did not choose to file WS till today even after expiry of more than 45 days. Today, also none appeared on behalf of applicant bank. There is no request either for pass over or for adjournment even after 3rd pass over, whereas the amended provisions of Act which was amended to further speed up proceedings and to cut short the delay thrust upon the Tribunal under Section 19 (5) (i) which reads as under: ……the defendant shall within a period of thirty days from the date of service of summons, present a written statement of his defence including claim for set-off under sub-section (6) or a counter claim under sub section (8), if any, and such written statement shall be accompanied with original documents or true copies thereof with the leave of the Tribunal, relied on by the defendant in his defence. PROVIDED that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, the Presiding Officer may, in exceptional cases and in special circumstances to be recorded in writing extend the said period by such further period not exceeding fifteen days to file the written statement of his defence………….

In the light of above provisions as well as order passed by Honble High Court in the case title M/s Crest Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd Vs Punjab National Bank. ……….Therefore, in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd., (2015) 16 SCC 22, the period of thirty days is mandatory keeping in view the object of the Act for expeditious disposal of the claim of the secured creditors. The intention for expeditious disposal is implicit, when sub Section (24) of Section 19, mandates the Tribunal to conclude the proceedings within two hearings…………………. ………Therefore, keeping in view of the object & purpose of the statute, we find that written statement was required to be filed within 30 days, which could in exceptional cases or in special circumstances be extended by the Tribunal by another fifteen days. In the present case, the petitioners were informed by show cause notice that they have to file their written statement within thirty days. The claim of the bank is for recovery of over 1400 Crore. Therefore, the provisions of the Act have to be assigned the meaning which is keeping in view the objective of the Act, rather than to frustrate the object. Therefore, we find that petitioners have lost their right to file written statement, having failed to do so within thirty days and also in the additional fifteen days. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed…………. J. Hemant Gupta, Chief Justice J. Vijay Kumar Shukla Since sufficient time and opportunity has already been granted whereas I do not find any exceptional circumstances to further allow the defendants to file WS, beyond this period as they have already consumed 45 days. Hence, right to file WS qua defendants stands closed.

Since there is no denial to the unrebutted case of the applicant bank and as such there is no requirement for admission and denial of documents. Therefore, the admission and denial of documents alongwith production of original is dispensed with. Case is matured for arguments. The applicant bank has filed duly sworn affidavit (Today marked Exh.AA) of Shri Naresh Kumar, Manager, Punjab Gramin Bank, Branch Office Dhandoi, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur (Pb), in evidence after reiterating all the averments as contained in the plaint and the same has been tendered and proved. Hence on the basis of the said averments as contained in the plaint, affidavit and documents and the same has been tendered and proved. Matter stands adjourned to 16.10.2018 for orders……...

After going through these facts which are duly proved on record that vide order dated 15.10.2018 right to file WS qua defendants was closed instead of declaring the defendants as exparte, it has been found that applicant/defendant no.1 is having the knowledge of all the proceedings the date fixed but did not choose to appears despite having sufficient time nor file the written statement even after expirty of more than one and a half months and now choose to approach this Tribunal with intention to delay the process of recovery which itself reflects from the conduct of the applicant/defendant no.1 who could get the copy of OA itself by applying to the Registry as mandatory by the statutory provision. 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. Since MA stands dismissed, hence any application filed in this MA also stands disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room. Order Dasti.

(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh Rajinder 14.12.2018