Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
UNION BANK OF INDIA vs Ms. Lal Bahadur Yadav And Others on 12 September 2025
DRT,PATNA
MA 169/2023 [0)
DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL,PATNA
PresidingOfficer: Shri Kaushalendra Yadav MA 169 of 2023
[Arising out of OA 411 of 2020)
Union Bank of India
.........Applicant
Versus
LalBahadur Yadav & Ors.
--Defendant
Present:
For the Applicant
Forthe defendants
: Sh.RakeshRanjan,Advocate
: None
Dated: 12.09.2025
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.
ORDER
1. This Misc. application has been filed by applicant bank for restoration of OA 411/2020 as it was Dismissedfor Default due to non prosecution on 30.06.2023.
2. It is submitted that the applicant could not appear on 30.06.2023 due to his illness. Hence, the present case remained unattended. The applicant has no intention to leavethe casewithout any reason and undertake to appear each and every date.
3. Despite service of notice through registered post as well as through substituted service by way of paper publication, none appeared on behalf of defendants as also reported by the Ld.Registrarof this Tribunal vide order dated 29.01.2024.
4. Heard Ld.Counselfor the applicant and perused the record.
5. The present MA has been filed by applicant bank on 03.08.2023 with the request to restore the said Original Applicant which was dismissed for default by the order dated 30.06.2023 without support with limitation petition.
6. It would be worthwhile to take up the limitation ground first.
DRT,PATNA
MA 169/2023 [0)
7. For the purpose of setting aside an ex parte decree or order or for rehearing of a case, the limitation period for filing an application is 30 days from the date of the order; and for the cases where summon was not served, the limitation will be counted from the date of knowledge.
8. In this caseorder dated 30.06.2023 was sought to be recalled on the arguments that due to illness of conducting counsel the case remained unattended. But the present application does not disclose the date of knowledge regarding dismissal of the case. Furthermore, the OA casewas dismissedalso on grounds of non compliance of order dated 09.12.2022 which has not been explained in the present MA. The array of parties has also not been mentioned in the present MA.
1. However, in the interest of justice this allocation may be allowed to ensure the recovery of the claimed amount under the O.A. considering the fact that the application has been moved on the ground of illnessof the counsel for the applicant.
9. It is also a matter of surprise how the registry has issuedthe notice to the defendants whereas neither the name of other defendants except Ritesh Kumar nor the address of the opposite parties has been mentioned in the present MA. It appears the present MA has been filed in a very casualmanner.
ORDER
The instant M.A. is allowed. The order dated 30.06.2023 passed in OA 411/2020 is set aside and the O.A. is restored to its original number. The applicant will take steps within 15 days for service of summons afresh to the defendants. After restoration the record will be sent to the Registrarfor compliance. A copy of this order be given to the parties concerned and also be uploaded on the website of the Tribunal. Theorder signed, dated and pronounced in open court today. Consignthe record. [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Date: 12.09.2025