Ms Singh Enterprises vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 11 July 2025

ORDER

1. This Misc. Application has been filed by applicant under section 22(G), (h) of the ROBAct for recalling the ex-parte judgment/order dated 06.08.2024 passedby this Tribunal in OA384/2020. Alongwith present MA, the applicants has also filed Limitation Petition by way of IA 22/2025 to condone the delay.

2. The respondent Bankappeared in the matter and filed its reply.

3. On the point of limitation it is submitted by the Ld. Counselfor the applicant that no notice was served/delivered to applicant either issued by respondent bank or by this Tribunal on the address where the applicant is actually residing. The applicant came to know on 25.10.2024 regarding the order/judgment dated 06.08.2024 when it was sent by the office of Ld. RecoveryOfficer of this Tribunal. On receipt of the above judgment/order, the applicant contacted counsel and gathered information regarding the /r/ w \~\-t>

DRT, PATNA

MA 11/2025 [0] case.Thereafter, applied before this Tribunal for the certified copy of the judgment on 11.11.2024 and the same was delivered to the applicants on 06.12.2024. Accordingly, this MA hasbeen filed on 06.01.2025.

4. It issubmitted by the Id. Counselfor the applicant that the applicants have credit facility to the tune of Rs.23 lacs from the respondent Bank. Account was running well but due to sudden serious illness of Sunita Singh, applicant no.3 the account became irregular therefore, the applicant had requested several times to the Bankto liquidate the overdue amount from the Fixed Deposit of applicant deposited with the Branch but the Bank did not credited the amount of Fixed Deposit into the loan account and declared the account as NPA on 30.11.2019 and soon after adjusted the Fixed Deposit amount into the loan account. Further, the Bank filed OA 384/2020 before this Tribunal in which notices were issued on 18.02.2021. The Bank filed its service report on 30.11.2021 vide which it appears that the notice was returned to the bank with the postal remark "Address cannot be traced". Hence, no notice was served upon applicants. Sofar as publication of notice in newspapers is concerned, the applicants went to their native place at that point of time due to the Covid-19. In the above circumstance, the applicants could not appear in the matter to contest the case. Accordingly, an ex-parte order was passed by this Tribunal on 06.08.2024. The applicant could know the saidjudgment from the Demand Notice issuedby Ld. RecoveryOfficer in RC116/2024 which was received to applicants on 25.10.2024.

5. On the contrary, Id. Counselof respondent Banksubmits that the OA 384/2020 was filed by the Bankfor the recovery of a sum of Rs.25,57,072/- with further interest. In the said matter notices were issued to the defendants and also by way of paper publication notice was served upon them but none of the defendants chose to appear in the matter to contest the case. Hence, the matter proceeded ex-parte against defendants. Accordingly, judgment and certificate was issued on 06.08.2024 for the recovery of the claim amount. Further, recovery proceedings were initiated by the Ld. Recovery Officer. Subsequently, Demand Notice was issued by the Recovery Officer but the borrowers did not choose to appear even before Ld. Recovery Officer. Therefore, substituted service of Demand Notice through paper publication hasalso been made. It is further submitted that the applicant no.3 has mortgaged the property with the Banksuppressingthe material fact that the half of the property hasalready been sold to another person.

6. Heard Ld.Counselfor the applicant and went through the record.

7. The present MA has been filed by the applicant for recalling the aside ex-parte judgment/order dated 06.08.2024 passedby this Tribunal in DRT, PATNA

MA 11/2025 [0] OA 384/2020 with the contention that no notice was served/deliveredto the applicants.

8. The Hon'ble SupremeCourt of India in the caseof Basawaraj&Anr. VersusTheSpl.LandAcquisitionOfficer, reported in [2013] 14 SCC811 has heldasunder- The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.

9. Evenon perusalof the limitation petition filed by the M. applicant,it appearsthat sufficient causefor delayhasnot beenexplained.

10. However,record of the original applicationshowsthat the summons were sent to the defendants/borrowerson 13-3-2021by Registered/Speed post. Apart from this summons was also published in the newspaper "DainikJagaran"on 15.12.2021to appearand contest the casebut none of the defendantsappearedin the matter despiteseveralopportunities.

11. As it has not been alleged by the applicant that the address mentioned on the summonswas not correct and the addressmentioned in the original application has also not been denied by the applicant. The postaldispatchof the summonsalongwith the copiesshallbe presumedto beservedin due courseasrequired undersection27 of the Generalclauses Act. Similarpresumption hasto be drawn regardingthe true and free copy issuedby the Tribunal after the judgment in the original application. Again it is important to mention that there is nothing on record to contradict the abovepresumption.

12. However in order to afford an opportunity to contest the caseon merits the application may be allowed subject to de~~the certificate \., \'>''> \\\

, DRT, PATNA

MA 11/2025 [0) amount without interest imposed thereunder within seven 15 days in concerned RP Case alongwith the security for the for the interest component and costs,to the satisfaction of concerned Recoveryofficer.

ORDER

The instant M.A. is disposed of in terms of the para 12 of this order. In case the applicant makes payment in terms of aforesaid Para-23, the judgment and certificate date 06.08.2024 passed in O.A.384/2020, shall stand set aside and the O.A.shall be restored to its original number. A copy of this order is given to the parties as well as to the Ld. RecoveryOfficer. The order signed, dated and pronounced in open court today. Consignthe record. [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts RecoveryTribunal, Patna Date: 11.07.2025