Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Smt Vishnumolakala Siva Kumari vs DENA BANK on 26 June 2019
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM**
Present :- Sri Doppala Vasudeva Rao, Presiding Officer Dated the 26<sup>th</sup> day of June, 2019
MA.No.185/2018
in
SA.257/18
Between
Smt.Vishnumolakala Siva Kumari,
D.No.8-11-110/2, 7<sup>th</sup> Street, Nehru Nagar, Kothapeta, Guntur
.....Petitioner/Applicant
And
Dena Bank, rep.by its authorized officer, Hyderabad
.....Respondents
Ld.Counsels for the petitioner : Sri VDVN Murty Ld.Counsel for the Respondent : M/s.MV Kini & Co.,
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 petitioner to set aside the dismissal of default order dated 23.10.2018 and restore the SA.257/2018 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 Tribunal dismissed the above SA for default for no representation on behalf of the applicant; that due to file misplace in the office of her counsel, he could not be able to represent the matter; that the non appearance before the Tribunal is neither willful nor wanton but for the above reason and therefore prayed to give her an opportunity to contest the matter and hence prayed to set aside the dismissal of default order dt.23.10.2018 and restore the above SA 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 the petitioner intentionally failed to appear before the Tribunal in order to drag on the proceedings and that there are no sufficient grounds to allow the above petition and the grounds urged for restoration of SA.257/18 are not true and maintainable and therefore prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
4. Perused the affidavit along with petition and counter filed by both parties. As per the SA docket proceedings, it can be seen that on 23.10.2018 it was noted that since no representation was made by the petitioner/applicant, the SA was dismissed for default for non-prosecution. At this juncture, the present petition is filed on 15.11.2018 to set aside the dismissed for default order dt.23.10.2018 stating that she could not attend Tribunal on that date due to misplace of record in her counsel's office and therefore prayed to set aside the dismissed for default order dt.23.10.2018 and also to restore SA in the interest of justice. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the docket proceedings of the SA and averments made in the petition and counter, I am of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is to be given to the petitioner/applicant to contest her case, hence I feel that this petition MA.185/2018 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.185/2018 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 26<sup>th</sup> June, 2019]
PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM