L THAMAYANTHI Vs. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) THE present respondent No. 1 had filed O. A. No. 663 of 1999 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of Rs. 20,29,650. 72 together with future interest. In the said O. A. , the present petitioners, who were the defendants 1 to 7, had filed written statement. Among other things, the defendants had contended that the Bank was not justified in claiming penal interest. It was further indicated that they were ready and willing to settle the entire amount in installments provided the Bank waived the penal interest and the interest charged after the closure of the business. The said O. A. was posted for hearing on 24. 10. 2001. Since the defendants and their counsel were absent, the defendants were set ex parte. On 24. 10. 2001, the following order was passed:

(3.) THEREAFTER on 22. 11. 2001, the Debts Recovery Tribunal again posted the matter on 26. 12. 2001 for passing final order and similarly, the matter was reposted to 28. 12. 2001, as the Judge was absent. Ultimately, on 28. 12. 2001, final order was passed in O. A. , allowing such application of Bank, directing recovery of amount claimed along with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 15% simple interest per annum. Subsequently, the present petitioners filed an application for setting aside the ex parte final order, which was numbered as miscellaneous application No. 24 of 2002. In such application, it was stated that the Advocate on record for the defendants had left for his native place by requesting another Advocate to seek for adjournment on 24. 12. 2001, but unfortunately, such Advocate, who was asked to request for adjournment, did not appear and thereafter, an ex parte final order was passed. The Debts Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 25. 10. 2006, rejected such application for restoration. Thereafter, the petitioners' appeal before the appellate Tribunal numbered as M. A. No. 2 of 2007, which has been dismissed under the impugned order, dated 20. 03. 2007 is under challenge in the present writ petition.