CANARA BANK vs ZINABHAI on 12 February 2025

Exh-5

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT AHMEDABAD

PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY, PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II.

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 01 of 2025

Date of Order:-12.02.2025

Canara Bank

...Appellant

Versus

Zinabhai Bachubhai Bharwad

...Respondent

1. 1. This Misc. Application is a chamber appeal against the order of Id. Registrar dated 03.06.2024 vide which Id. Registrar of this Tribunal had declined to register the proposed Original Application on the ground that in spite of granting sufficient opportunities since 15.06.2023 onwards, none on behalf of the applicant has appeared to remove the objections raised by the Id. Registrar. The objections raised by the Registry was that full account statement right from beginning has not been annexed with the Original Application.

2. 2. In this regard the Id. Registrar has come to the conclusion that the applicant is not interested in prosecution of this case since the objections raised were not removed till the date of order dated 03.06.2024, therefore, the Registry had declined to register the Original Application as per Rule 5 (4) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

3. 3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant fully agrees with the observation of Id. Registrar that gross negligence has been occurred on the part of the applicant in removing preliminary objections raised by the Registry but he has submitted that this negligence was not caused due to any deliberate error on the part of the applicant as mentioned in part 4 of the MA. Sole reason for non-removal of objections on the part of the applicant is that the previous advocate Mr. Ankit Mekwan who had filed the Original Application on behalf of the applicant had never informed the applicant about the objections raised and further the said advocate left the country without giving any intimation to the applicant. Hence the applicant was not aware about the objections raised by the Id. Registrar and the said objections could not be removed. The MA is supported by affidavit on behalf of the Applicant.

1. 4. On the basis of statement on oath by the applicant it appears that non-removal of objections raised by the Id. Registrar was due to negligence on the part of the previous counsel of the applicant. It is in the interest of justice that at least one more opportunity should be given to the applicant to remove the objections raised by the Id. Registrar on 15.06.2023.

2. 5. As far as delay of 180 days in preferring this chamber appeal is concerned, it appears that this delay is due to the negligence on the part of the previous counsel of the applicant.

3. 6. Interest of justice lies in giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties and in disposal of disputes between the parties on merit as far as it is possible. Denial of opportunity of hearing on technical ground will not serve the purpose of justice.

4. 7. On the basis of these observations this MA deserves to be allowed.