NARESH AGRAWAL Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Calling in question tenability of orders-dated 20.3.2012 and 2.5.2012, passed by the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad dismissing an appeal filed on the ground of non-deposit of pre-deposit amount as required under section 21 of the Debts Recovery Act, this writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) It is seen that an ex-parte decree was passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur directing for recovery of certain amount due to the bank in question. As the order was passed by the Tribunal ex-parte to the present petitioner, an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for recalling the ex-parte order and hearing the matter on merit. This case was registered as M.A. No. 27/2007 and the DRT vide order-dated 29.11.2010 dismissed the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC and confirmed the decree passed earlier. Challenging the same an appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal and in the appellate proceedings, exemption from payment of pre-deposit amount was sought for. The Tribunal by the impugned order directed the petitioner to deposit 60% of the amount due. However, when this amount was also not deposited, the appeal itself was dismissed and, therefore, challenging both these orders, the writ petition has filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue that the proceedings initiated before the DRT under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC is a miscellaneous proceeding and when the order challenged before the appellate Tribunal was only a proceeding under Order IX Rule 13 which was dismissed on 29.11.2010, the requirement of pre-deposit as contemplated under section 21 is not attracted and, therefore, in rejecting the application an error has been committed by the Tribunal.