UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. K R JEWELLERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 21. 06. 2007, made in I. N. No. 375 of 2005 on the file of Debt Recover Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, as against the order, dated 15. 02. 2002, made in I. A. No. 994 of 2000 in T. A. No. 589 of 2001 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai.

(2.) THE background of this revision is, that, originally, a suit in O. S. No. 511 of 1995 on the file of Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, was filed by the revision petitioner for a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 11,44,369. 33 jointly and severally with further interest thereon at 20. 75% per annum with quarterly rests for the cash credit facility up to Rs. 7,50,000/-, and the said suit was subsequently transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai, and renumbered as T. A. No. 589 of 2001. Though the respondents entered appearance on 13. 02. 1999, T. A. No. 589 of 2001 was ordered ex parte on 11. 02. 2000. Thereafter, I. A. No. 994 of 2000 was filed by the respondents to set aside the ex parte order, dated 11. 02. 2000, and to restore the matter on the file of the Tribunal.

(3.) THE case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the deceased fourth respondent, by name, Kausalya Mani was the owner of the immovable property which had been offered as collateral security for obtaining the loan from the petitioner bank; the fourth respondent, who was the mother of second respondent, was interacting with the advocate at Coimbatore in the proceedings and the matter was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai; the Tribunal, by its order, dated 24. 06. 1999, directed the petitioner bank to furnish copies of plaint and documents to enable the respondents' erstwhile counsel to file reply statement finally by 13. 08. 1999, on which day, counsel for the respondents filed a memo stating that he had not received copies of the plaint and other documents; despite the memo, since the reply statement was not filed even on that day, all the respondents were called absent and set ex parte and the Tribunal passed orders on 11. 02. 2000; the information was not passed on to the respondents, as the fourth respondent, who was dealing with the affairs, expired on 22. 05. 1998; there was a communication gap between the previous counsel in Coimbatore and the counsel engaged at Chennai to appear in the matter before the Tribunal; the respondents had sufficient defence in the case and that the respondents ought to have been given an opportunity in the matter including the right of letting in evidence. Accordingly, they prayed for setting aside the ex parte order, dated 11. 02. 2000.