Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Sri Valavala Neela Swamy And Anothers vs IDBI BANK on 4 March 2020
1
MA 66 of 2017 in OA 770 of 2016
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM
Present :- Sri Doppala Vasudeva Rao, Presiding Officer Dated the 4<sup>th</sup> day of March, 2020
MA 66 of 2017
in
OA 770 of 2016
Between
Valavala Neela Swamy, S/o Narayana Rao, Flat No. 401, Sri Laxmi Nilayam, D.No.82-7-8, Vidhyuth Colony, AVA Road, Near Vigneswaraswamy Temple, Rajahmundry - 533102 EG District and Another.
.....Petitioners/Defendants
And
IDBI Bank Ltd., Danvaipeta Branch, Rajahmundry, rep by its Manager, KSR Complex, Danvaipeta, Rajahmundry
.....Respondent/Applicant Bank
Ld Counsel for Petitioners
Ld Counsel for Respondent Bank
- Sri KS Shankar
- Sri GS Shyam Sundar
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
The petition MA 66 of 2017 is filed by petitioners to condone the delay of 31 days in filing the petition for setting aside the exparte Orders dt: 31.05.2017 in the interest of justice.
2. According to the case, petitioner is the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant in the OA and 1<sup>st</sup> defendant is his wife and after receiving summons his wife signed Vakalatnama and during February, 2017 the petitioner suffering from jaundice and such could not contact his Counsel and therefore written statement could not be filed and were set exparte and Orders passed on 31.05.2017 and there 2MA 66 of 2017 in OA 770 of 2016
was delay in filing petition for setting aside exparte orders within one month and therefore filed the present petition MA 66/2017 with a prayer to condone the delay of 31 days in filing the petition for setting aside the exparte Orders dt: 31.05.2017 in the interest of justice.
3. Counter has been filed by the respondent/ applicant bank denying the petition averments and further submitted that defendant herein deliberately did not file written statement and evidence and also did not file documentary evidence to support his version of ill-health and therefore there are no tenable grounds to reopen the matter and therefore prayed to dismiss the present petition MA 66/2017.
4. Heard both sides. Ld Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner herein had entrusted the case to his Counsel and would take care of the matter and further submitted that petitioner was suffering from Jaundice during February 2017 and continued till May, 2017 as such petitioner could not contact his Counsel and therefore there was difficulty in filing written statement and delay was not deliberate and keeping in view of the above Ld Counsel for petitioner prayed to allow the petition MA 66/2017 and set aside the exparte order dt: 31.05.2017. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for respondent/ applicant bank argued that the present petition MA 66/2017 is not maintainable and petitioner failed to explain the delay of 31 days in filing the petition for setting aside the exparte order dt: 31.05.2017. Therefore, Ld Counsel for respondent bank argued to dismiss the present petition. On perusal of the petitioner averments, it is observed that no medical record evidencing that petitioner was suffering from A handwritten signature in dark ink, appearing to be "D. Reddy" or similar, with a flourish at the end.
3MA 66 of 2017 in OA 770 of 2016
jaundice from February 2017 to May, 2017 was filed for perusal of Tribunal. Moreover, no other grounds were mentioned for delay of 31 days for filing petition to set aside the exparte order dt: 31.05.2017. Moreover, day to day delay was not explained by the petitioner. Therefore, there are no cogent reasons and sufficient grounds to condone delay of 31 days in filing petition to set aside the exparte order dt: 31.05.2017.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that there are no merits in the petition and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, this petition MA 66/2017 is dismissed however without costs.
Let the copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rules.
[Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on 4<sup>th</sup> day of March, 2020]
4/3/2020 PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM