Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
M/S Sateesh Pipes vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 10 January 2020
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM
Present :- SHRI DUPPALA VASUDEVA RAO,
PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated the 10<sup>th</sup> day of January, 2019
M.A. No. 106 of 2017
In
OA No.98 of 2014
Between :
1. Boddu Prasad Rao, S/o Late Kotaiah, D.No.18-192, Butchirajupalem, Tangatur Post, Prakasam District.
..... Appellant /Petitioner
And
1. Punjab National Bank, Hyderabad
..... Respondent
Ld Counsel for Applicant/ Petitioner - Sri PVN Chowdary Ld Counsel for Respondent Bank - Sri KS Shankar
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
This petition is filed by the Appellant/ Petitioner to condone delay of 06 days in filing the petition in the interest of justice.
2. According to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, petitioner submitted that on 27.07.2017 the case was posted for filing of evidence on behalf of defendant and could not adduce evidence on that day and Tribunal closed defendant's evidence and the case was adjourned to 18.08.2017 and on that day exparte orders were pronounced and due to some family reasons could not follow up the case as such defendants evidence could not be filed in time is neither intentional nor wanton and in search of Counsel resulted in delay of 10 days in filing the petition and therefore prayed to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the petition.
3. Counter has been filed by the respondent bank denying the MA averments and submitted that defendants filed written statement and contested the matter and dragged the matter from 2014 without payment of loan amount and matter was posted for defendants evidence but defendants failed to adduce evidence as such the Tribunal treated that there are no evidence of the defendants and pronounced orders on 18.08.2017 and the order was are pronounced on merits of the considering the written statement filed by the defendants and it is not exparte order and even otherwise the petitioner did not file the petition for setting A handwritten signature, possibly reading "D. K. K.", is located at the bottom right of the page.
aside the exparte decree within one month from 18.08.2017 and the petitioner filed a petition to condone the delay of 10 days in filing to set aside the exparte order and further submitted that the present petition is filed to drag on the matter and therefore there are no merits in the present petition and therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the petition in the interest of justice as prayed for or not.
5. Heard both sides. Ld Counsel for petitioner prayed to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the petition and prayed to set aside the orders in OA 98/2014. Ld Counsel for petitioner further submitted that previous Advocate did not handover the record as such there was delay of 10 days in filing the petition. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for respondent bank argued that the OA 98/2014 was not set exparte and the Order in OA 98/2014 was passed on merits only. On perusal of record, it is clear that order was passed in OA 98/2014 and on perusal of A handwritten signature in dark ink, appearing to be "D. Rao" or similar, with a long, sweeping stroke extending from the end of the name towards the right.
docket it was observed this Tribunal recorded that defendants not adduced evidence though sufficient time was given and hence defendants evidence is closed by treating that the defendants have no evidence. Therefore, it is crystal clear that OA 98/2014 was not decreed exparte and the OA was disposed off on merits. Therefore, prayer for setting exparte decree in OA 98/2014 and condonation of delay for 10 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
In the result MA 106/2017 is dismissed however without costs.
Let the copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rules.
[Dictated to PS, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 10<sup>th</sup> day of January, 2020]
10/1/2020 PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM