DAN BAHADUR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue notice. The learned counsel named above accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The petition has been filed since the DRT concerned is not functioning today on account of all DRT Presiding Officers having gone to attend a "National Seminar for Presiding Officers of DRT at the National Judicial Academy India, Bhopal" organised by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which understandably would be conscious that the non-functioning of all DRTs in the country, for at least two consecutive days, would be causing prejudice to many a party. One such party is the present petitioner, who says that auction apropos his mortgaged property is scheduled for today and if the auction goes through without his case being heard on merits, the petitioner may be irreparably prejudiced and he may become remediless. His application cannot be taken up today by the DRT for the aforesaid reason. He contends that the auction cannot proceed without prior clear notice of 15 days, which was not accorded to him. Furthermore, notice has admittedly been sought to be served upon the petitioner, at an address which is no more relevant because physical possession of the said property, his former residential address, had already been taken by the respondent-bank. Therefore, notice ought to have been served upon him at the address notified to the bank in proceedings pending before the DRT.

(3.) In view of the above, the learned counsel for the parties will request the DRT concerned to take up the matter on an urgent basis preferably this week itself.