Alluri Venkata Suman vs UNION BANK OF INDIA (ANDHRA BANK) on 8 July 2022

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this case against OP (Union Bank of India) and prayed to condone delay of 725 days in filing the petition to set aside exparte order dt. 28.01.2019 passed in OA No. 59/2015 for the purpose to reopen the above matter for adducing evidence of 4" defendants in the interest of justice. In this MA the petitioner has submitted that the proprietor of the 1st Defendant M/s. ASR Cotton Traders died leaving behind this petitioner as his son Aluri Venkata Suman (i.e 4 defendant) and mother Aluri Kanakamma (i.e 5" defendant) as his surviving class-I Legal Heirs, who inherited the estate of the deceased Aluri Sankara Rao and they are liable to the extent of estate of the deceased Aiuri Sankara Rao.

MA.13/2021 in OA.59/2015/ This petitioner has alleged that he did not executed the documents filed by the applicant bank and he is only the Legal Heir of the deceased1 defendant and his liability restricted to the estate of the 1st defendant in his hands. This petitioner has further submitted that this Tribunal on 12.02.2012 passed an order and there is a delay of 725 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order dt. 28.01.2019. This petitioner has prayed to reopen the matter for adducing the evidence. The OP has submitted that the petitioner herein failed to prove cogent reason for condone the delay of 725 days and petitioner herein failed to explain the in ordinate delay of 725 days in filing the above application and the above application is liable to be dismissed with costs. After perusal of this MA 31/21, I find that petitioner has not filed any evidence in support of the condone delay. After perusal of the record of OA it reveals that D4 Shri Aluri Venkata Suman was present in OA and he filed his written statement on 07.01.2016. He has filed affidavit on 31.10.2016 before this Tribunal and vide order dt. 16.11.2016 the case was set exparte against D3. After perusal of order dated 21.12.2018 it reveals that D1, D2 and D4 was not ready for adducing evidence after giving sufficient time. Hence Hon'ble Presiding Officer closed the evidence of D1, D2 and D4 treating that D1, D2 and D4 has no evidence. After perusal of MA record it reveals that this petitioner is trying to alive the matter again on different grounds. All the facts herein were in his MA.13/2021 in OA.59/2015 knowledge. He was present as D4 in OA and here he has stated that he had no knowledge of OA which is totally wrong. The petitioner has not stated real facts in this MA. On the basis of above discussion I dismiss MA 31/2021. yped to the dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 08" July, 2022] PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM