PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs Sri Chandramala Enterprises Private Ltd on 7 June 2019

**ORDER**

This petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the default order dated 27.4.2018 to enable the petitioner/applicant to advance its arguments in the above SA in the interest of justice.

2. According to the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed SA challenging the measures initiated by respondent bank; that the matter was posted to 27.4.2018 for arguments and the matter was dismissed for default. It has been stated that the petitioner is having good case and therefore prayed to set aside the default order dated

27.4.2018. It has been further stated that another SA.144/2015 was connected with this SA and in that SA.144/2015 a commission petition was filed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and it is pending and if commissioner is appointed both the SAs could be simultaneously disposed of. It has been further stated that his senior counsel's junior who appeared on that day could not represent the matter properly and the Tribunal dismissed the SA. It has been stated that reason for default is neither willful nor wanton but for the reason assigned above and therefore prayed to set aside the default order dt.27.4.2018 to enable the applicant to advance the arguments in the interest of justice.

3. The respondent bank has filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition and further submitted that the present MA is neither tenable under law nor on facts. It has been further stated that this SA was posted from time to time for hearing and whereas the petitioner counsel or his junior counsel represented before the Tribunal and sought time and that the Tribunal has given several opportunities to the petitioner and granted extension of time and that the petitioner/or his counsel did not attend before the Tribunal accordingly the matter was dismissed by the Tribunal and that there are no merits in the above petition and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. Perused the affidavit along with petition and counter filed by both parties. As per the SA proceedings, it can be seen that a conditional order was passed on 28.2.2018 to argue the matter by petitioner/applicant on the next hearing date i.e. on 21.3.2018, on which date matter was heard partly and posted to 27.4.2018 for continuation of arguments but the petitioner/applicant did not argue the matter and ultimately, since no representation was made by the petitioner/applicant in spite of conditional order, the SA along with IA was dismissed for default for non-prosecution. At this juncture, the present petition is filed to set aside the default order dt.27.4.2018 for the purpose of arguments of applicant stating that he could not attend Tribunal on that date and also his senior counsel's junior appeared on that day but could not represent the matter properly and therefore prayed to set aside the default order dt.27.4.2018 and also to restore SA in the interest of justice. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the proceedings of the SA and averments made in the petition and counter, I am of the considered opinion, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is to be given to the petitioner/applicant to contest his case, hence I feel that this petition MA.68/2018 be allowed and SA is restored to file however subject to appearance/representation of the petitioner/applicant before the Tribunal on the next date of hearing, failing which this SA stands dismissed.

5. Accordingly this MA.68/2018 is allowed and SA is restored to file subject to condition that the petitioner/applicant appear/represent before the Tribunal on the next date of hearing, failing which the SA stands dismissed.

[Typed to the dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 7^th June, 2019]

PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM