BODDU PRASAD RAO Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Penjuri Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank, in both the petitions.

(2.) The respondent-bank filed O.A.No.98 of 2014 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Visakhapatnam, (in short 'Tribunal') against the petitioner and others. The petitioner is the 3 rd defendant in the said O.A., The O.A., was allowed, by order, dtd. 18/8/2017.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that on 18/8/2017, the Tribunal closed the evidence of defendant as there was no evidence on behalf of the defendant, and passed the aforesaid exparte order. As there was 10 days delay in filing the restoration application to set aside the exparte decree dtd. 18/8/2017, he filed M.A.No.106 of 2017 in O.A.No.98 of 2014 for condonation of delay. The application was dismissed on 10/1/2020, on the ground that the O.A., was allowed on merits, and it was not an exparte order.