Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
S Jayapal vs BANK OF BARODA on 14 November 2024
Fair Order
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI
DATED THIS 14th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA
[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd]
PRESIDING OFFICER
SR Nos. 3603/24, 3604/24 & 6161/24
in
SA No. 518/2017
Sri. S. Jeyapal,
S/o. Savariraj,
54, Chinnappa Street,
Rayappanpatti,
Theni District – 625 526. --- Applicant
-Vs-
R-1. The Authorized Officer,
Bank of Baroda,
Kamagoundapatti,
Theni District.
R-2. Mr. S. Joseph Patric,
S/o. Mr. Soosai,
Thiruvalluvar Nagar,
L. Abishapuram,
Lalgudi, Trichy.
R-3. R. Gnanam Jancy Rani,
W/o. S. Sahaya Raj,
339, Raction Shop Street,
Bomminayackan Patti,
Sindalaicherry Post,
Thevaram (via), Theni District.
--- Respondents
Appearance of Advocates:
Mr. S. Jeyapal Varaprasatham ---- Petitioner/Applicant/Party-In- Person Mr. P. Pethu Rajesh ---- Counsel for the 1st Respondent
Bank
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.
O R D E R
Shri. S. Jeyapal Varaprasatham, the Applicant, Party-In-Person has filed Petitions in SR No. 3603/24 & SR No. 3604/24 dated 15.03.24 to re- open and recall the Dismissal Order dated 25.03.2022 in respect of SA No. 518/17 passed by this Tribunal. Further, he has filed the condone delay Petition in SR No. 6161/24 on 06.06.2024. These Petitions were placed before me for hearing on the point of maintainability.
Heard the Parties. The Applicant, the party in person has submitted that he had filed SA No. 518 of 2017, which was dismissed on 25.3.2022 by the DRT, Madurai. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent Bank has obtained an Order from the Ld. CJM, Theni for taking Physical Possession of the Property. It is further submitted that the Applicant has preferred Writ Petition vide WP (MD) No. 26813/22 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in which injunction was obtained and subsequently a case was filed on 20.12.23, but the case was dismissed as the Lawyer of the Applicant did not appear for the said case and the Hon'ble High Court directed the Applicant to approach DRT, Madurai. Hence, he has filed the recall Petition in SA No. 518/17 for further hearing. He has also submitted that he could not file this re-open Petition in time, because when the case was dismissed on 25.03.2022, he was present in person and thereafter on 07.11.2022, the Bank had received an Order from the Ld. CJM Court, Theni to hand over the Physical Possession of the Property and he was also served with a notice on 19.01.2022. Further, he submitted that he could not file this Petition in time due to delay in procuring the copy of Order of Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) passed in WP (MD) No. 26813/22, so the delay is neither wilful nor wanton and may be condoned.
On the other hand, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank has vehemently opposed the recall and re-open Petition filed by the Applicant and submitted that the Applicant was present in Person at the time of dismissal of the case, but he did not raise any objection.
Having heard the parties, I perused the records and I find that the Applicant has filed this SA No. 518/17 challenging the Sale Notice dated 08.12.17 but the sale was not held for want of bidders and also the Applicant did not comply the Conditional Order passed by this Tribunal. From perusal of Order dated 25.03.2022, I also find that thereafter, the 1st Respondent Bank further issued an another Sale Notice dated 12.10.2018 for the auction scheduled to be held on 31.10.18, in which 20 cents lands were sold to the successful bidder. The 1st Respondent Bank further issued another Sale Notice dated 05.11.2018, however, the Sale Notice did not materialize for want of bidders. Thereafter, the Bank issued the 5th auction Sale Notice dated 11.01.2019, wherein an item of the property was sold to the successful bidder and hence, the SA became infructuous as the cause of action remained in the case did not survive before the Tribunal. And, hence, the SA was dismissed as infructuous.
From perusal of the Order dated 25.03.2022 passed in SA No. 518/2017 by this Tribunal, I also find that on the date of order, the Applicant was very much present in the Court in person but he did not even raise any objection before the Court and the case was dismissed but after lapse of 2 years, he has filed this Petition to reopen and recall the Order dated 25.03.2022 and the reason for the delay for filing this Petition explained by him is also not satisfactory. Hence, the above Petitions filed by the Applicant are not maintainable under the point of law.
So, I find that there is no merit in filing these Petitions and these petitions are not maintainable under Law. Accordingly, the Petitions in SR No. 3603/24 & SR No. 3604/24 & SR No. 6161/24 stand rejected, as not maintainable. Dictated to PA (DK), taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 14th November, 2024.
sd/- (SEEMA SINHA)
Dictated & Corrected by me
sd/- (SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER
Typed by me
(D. Krishnaveni, PA)
Order uploaded on 22.11.2024