SUREKHA BALASAHEBNAIKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent in D.R.D/KA.RA.SOU.SAM.SA.NI/8547/2019-20 dtd. 17/10/2020, the 1st respondent therein has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) On the ground that the petitioner herein along with few others owed money to the 3rd respondent Bank and they committed default in repayment of the same, the 3rd respondent initiated dispute No. D.R.D/KA.RA.SOU.SAM.SA.NI/8547/2019-20 before the 2nd respondent. Inspite of service of notice, the petitioner and other respondents in the proceedings before the 2nd respondent, remained absent. Based on the evidence let in by the 3rd respondent/ Bank, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order holding the petitioner herein and the other respondents before it, are liable to pay the amounts as mentioned in the impugned order. The said order is challenged by the petitioner herein on the ground that, she has repaid all the amounts due and she does not owe any money to the 3rd respondent.

(3.) Whether the petitioner has repaid all the dues or not is a matter of evidence and cannot be gone into in these proceedings. Admittedly, the impugned order is an exparte order passed against the respondents therein. Under the circumstances I am of the opinion interest of justice would be served if the impugned order is set aside subject to petitioner depositing 25% of the amount awarded along with due interest thereon within six weeks from today and remand the matter back to 2nd respondent to decide after hearing the parties concerned. Hence, the following;