T R DASAPPAN Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents 1 and 2 in O.A.No.1558 of 1998 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai are the revision petitioners. This revision is filed against the dismissal of I.A.No.2015 of 2000 dated 17.9.2001 by the said Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(2.) The respondent Bank filed O.A.No.1558 of 1998 to recover a sum of Rs.58,76,781/-. When it was posted for filing a reply statement to 25.5.1999, the revision petitioners remained ex parte and so they were set ex parte. The application I.A.No.1428 of 1999 was filed on 3.9.1999 to set aside the ex parte order dated 25.5.1999. The Debt Recovery Tribunal passed a conditional order for allowing the said application on payment of 1/5th of the claim amount to the Bank and further directing to file the reply statement. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.2015 of 2000 to modify the conditional order dated 7.3.2000 made in I.A.No.1428 of 1999. The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the petition as per order dated 17.9.2001 and that order is challenged in this revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the order of dismissal in I.A.No.2015 of 2000 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was filed to modify the conditional order made in I.A.No.1428 of 1999, is not proper, in that, the revision petitioners were set ex parte for not filing the reply statement, for which purpose and to set aside the ex parte order dated 25.5.1999, I.A.No.1428 of 1999 was filed which was ordered allowing the said application on condition to pay the respondent Bank 1/5th of the claim amount of Rs.58,76,781/- and in any event, according to the learned counsel, such amount ordered is very much excessive and onerous.