SURESH SHARMA Vs. PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking following reliefs:

(2.) The unfolded facts are as under:

(3.) The contention of Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that although the DRT rejected the application of the Petitioner for setting aside the ex parte judgment under Section 22(2)(g) of the Act of 1993 as well as another application for correction of certificate under Section 26(2) of the said Act, by order dated 4-2-2005 against which Review Application No. 2/05 was filed by the Petitioner on the averment that because on showing of the Bank itself present Petitioner cannot be held jointly and severally (personally) liable to pay the dues of the Bank, since as per the affidavit of Officer of the Bank namely Shashi Pal Lakhwara other Defendants No. 2, 3 and 5 executed the personal guarantee, and because, there was a mistake apparent on the face of record, the learned DRT rightly allowed the review application on 4-8-2005 (Annexure P/9) and rightly further held that the agreement dated 10-4-1995 (D/l-A) and memorandum of understanding (D/l-B) were not the part of the original suit, therefore, the Bank is not entitled for any relief on the basis of those two documents against the Petitioner.