IRRE DINDAYAL AGARWAL Vs. UCO BANK & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revisional Application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order No. 11 dated June 28, 1995 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta (the 'Tribunal' for short) in O.A. case No. 65 of 1995 of his file.

(2.) By the impugned order the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's earlier applications dated May 23, and June 8, 1995 for vacating the ex parte order dated 28.6.1995 passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that on enquiries from the Officer of the Tribunal on May 18, 1995 he learnt that the case was fixed for ex parte hearing on May 23, 1995. It is alleged that although he appeared in the case with his Advocate at 11.30 a.m. the matter had been heard ex parte before his arrival at 10.30 a.m. Subsequently, on June 8, 1995 he preferred an application before the Tribunal for fixing the date of hearing of the petition and to give him an opportunity of hearing and sent the same by Speed Post. By its order dated June 16, 1995 the Tribunal adjourned the hearing of the case to June 28, 1995 and receiving the said order on June 28, 1995 the petitioner was present with his learned Advocate and made submissions in support of his two applications filed before the Tribunal but the Tribunal rejected both the applications. In the present Revisional Application the order has been challenged on the ground that the Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in not considering the fact that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the matter was called on for hearing and that in such circumstances the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.