S RAVI CHANDRA Vs. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the third defendant in O. A. No, 182 of 1995 filed by the second respondent on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. Petitioner claims that he became aware of the said proceedings only during June 1997 and immediately thereafter filed an application (LA. No. I) on 10-7-1997 to recall the order placing him ex parte and seeking permission to contest the proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the said application on 7-8-1997 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/ -. The case was adjourned on 3-9-1997 for payment of costs and for filing his statement (reply ). As petitioner did not file his statement, the following order was made on 3-9-1997: "d3 absent. Reply not filed. No representation for the defendants. Hence, place the file before Bench for further trial by 24-9-1997".

(2.) ON 24-9-1997, there was no representation and A. Ws. 1 and 2 (Bank's witnesses), who were present for cross-examination were discharged, and the evidence of the applicant-Bank was closed and the matter was posted to 29-10-1997 for the defendants' evidence. On 29-10-1997, petitioner (third defendant) filed an application (I. A. No. 8) requesting the Tribunal to recall the orders dated 3-9-1997 and 24-9-1997 and permit him to contest the matter. In his affidavit filed in support of the said application, petitioner stated that on 3-9-1997, his Counsel had instructed him to appear before the Tribunal and pay the costs, but he could not reach the Court in time; again on 24-9-1997, he was instructed by his Counsel to appear before the Court, but on account of heavy traffic, he could not reach the Tribunal in time and his non-appearance was due to bona fide reasons. The Tribunal, considered LA. No, 8 and allowed the application by the following order: "heard I. A. No. 8. The witnesses were present on 24-9-1997 at the request of defendants to cross-examine. The defendants and Counsel remained absent on that day without any reason. Again the defendants have sought for recall of the witnesses. This calls for serious action since defendants have no regard for the orders of the Court. Hence, I. A. No. 8 is allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 2,500/ -. Cost and witnesses to be kept present by 9-12-1997".

(3.) FEELING aggrieved petitioner has filed this petition and sought quashing of the said order dated 29-10-1997. Petitioner has also sought a direction to the Tribunal to post the matter for petitioner's objections and consider his contentions. The petitioner has urged the following grounds: