Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SRI JAYAPRAKASH vs THE MALLESHWARAM CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD on 29 May 2026
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.
MA 01/2025
23/03/2026
- for Hearing
**23.03.2026**
Both the Counsels are present.
Heard both the learned Counsels.
For orders, list the matter on 29.05.2026.
✓ Presiding Officer
**29.05.2026**
Miscellaneous Application is filed seeking recall/restoration of the order dismissing the Securitisation application no. 373/19 for default/ non-prosecution on account of non-appearance of the applicant on the date fixed for hearing/arguments. The ground urged in the application is that the learned counsel for the applicant was unwell on the said date and therefore could not appear before the Tribunal.
The respondent opposes the application contending that no medical document or other material has been produced to substantiate the alleged illness of the counsel. It is further contending that even on the earlier occasion there was no representation on behalf of the applicant and no explanation whatsoever has been offered for such absence, which clearly shows lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter.
Considered the submission of both sides and perused the record. The record reveals that on the earlier date also, there was no appearance on behalf of the applicant. The present application explains only the absence on the date of dismissal and remains completely silent regarding the earlier non-appearance. Further, except making a bald statement that the advocate was unwell, no supporting material such as medical certificate or prescription has been produced before the Tribunal.
At the same time, it is settled that a litigant should ordinarily not be denied opportunity of ✓
MA No. 01/2025
...Contd...
adjudication on merits merely on account of lapse on the part of the counsel, unless the conduct discloses deliberate negligence or abuse of process. The Tribunal is therefore inclined to afford one final opportunity to the applicant, subject to terms, so that the matter may decided on merits.
Accordingly, the MA- is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent within two weeks. Upon such Payment, the order of dismissal dated 20.11.2024 stands recalled and the Securitisation Application is restored to its original number. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on the instance of the applicant and failure to comply with the above condition shall result in automatic revival of the dismissal order without further reference to the Tribunal.
Call on 12.06.2026 for further proceedings/compliance.
✓ Presiding Officer