MANIRAM DUKIYA vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK on 1 September 2025

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th data-bbox="105 158 281 211">Date of order or proceeding</th> <th data-bbox="281 158 738 211">Order with signature of court</th> <th data-bbox="738 158 874 211">Office action taken with date</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td data-bbox="105 211 281 928"> M.A. No.222/2022<br/> 01.09.2025<br/> SL. No.38 </td> <td data-bbox="281 211 738 928"> <p>Head the Ld. Counsels for the applicant as well as respondent bank on perused the record. This MA has been brought by the applicant, ^heard Shri Sudhir Kumar Pandey ^{to the respondent} and for the respondent bank Miss Usha Chawla.</p> <p>This Miscellaneous Application has been brought by the applicant for setting aside/recall the judgment dated 07.04.2022 passed in O.A. No.367/2020.</p> <p>Admittedly, the applicant was not a party in the said O.A. It is submitted that the process of sanctioning of fake loan. ^{by the} The loan was disbursed and the order of the OA was passed against the secured asset which belongs to the applicant. It is submitted that judgment suffers of patent illegality.</p> <p>Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank submits that Section 5-A deals with the review of any order.</p> <p>"Any party which considering itself aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal on account ^of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, desires to obtain a review of the order made against him, may apply for a review of the order to the Tribunal which had made the order.</p> <p>No application for review shall be made after the expiry of a period of (thirty</p> </td> <td data-bbox="738 211 874 928"></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Conti.... Page No.2 M.A.No.222/2022 01.09.2025 SL. No.38

days) from the date of the order and no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by an affidavit verifying the application.

Where it appears to the Tribunal that there is no sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application but, where the Tribunal is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, it shall grant the same."

**It is submitted that only the party to a case may challenge even an ex-parte order, my attention has been drawn towards ~~alternate~~ ^alternate submission.**

**It is submitted that an analogy may be drawn from order (9) Rule (13) of C.P.C. which reads as:**

*"In any case in which a decree is passed ex-parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the sut was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit."*

It is argued that MA brought by the applicant is not maintainable needless to say that in this case recovery certificate has been issued and the applicant is at liberty to file proper application before the Recovery Officer in accordance with law.

I am of the view that petition MA has been brought in the present format is not maintainable, **since the applicant of this**

<table border="1"><tr><td data-bbox="103 78 280 655"><p>Conti....<br/>Page No.3<br/>M.A.No.222/2022<br/>01.09.2025<br/>SL. No.38</p></td><td data-bbox="280 78 735 655"><p><b>MA was not a party in the OA.</b></p><p>Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed being not maintainable.</p><p>Let the file be cosigned to record room.</p><p>Order be uploaded on the Tribunal's website.</p><p>(Dictated)</p><p>(Pravas Kumar Singh)<br/>Presiding Officer</p></td><td data-bbox="735 78 875 655"></td></tr><tr><td data-bbox="103 655 280 655"></td><td data-bbox="280 655 735 655"><p>(Mugish)</p></td><td data-bbox="735 655 875 655"></td></tr></table>