(1.) BOTH these appeals have been heard analogous and are being disposed of analogously and the parties are the same and the issues involved are also almost the same and similar in nature.
(2.) APPEAL No. R -310/03 has been preferred by the above named appellants against the order dated 13th May, 2003 passed by the then Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad in M.A. No. 181/02, whereby and whereunder the restoration petition filed under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the RDDBFI Act) for setting aside the final order passed in T. A. No. 170/2000 on 27th August, 2002 has been dismissed.
(3.) APPEAL No. R -311/03 has been filed by the same appellants against the order dated 13th May, 2003 passed in M.A. No. 184/02 filed by the same appellants for setting aside the ex parte judgment and order passed in T.A. No. 169/2000 dated 27th August, 2002. The appellant -applicants were defendant Nos. 2 and 5 in the original case and they had only appeared in the case through their Advocate Mr. Jauhari and it appears that both the cases between the same parties were fixed on the same date before the Tribunal, other defendants did not appear. Defendant No. 4 in this case was Triveni Nath Pandey. who died during the pendency of the proceeding before the D.R.T., Allahabad after its transfer from the D.R.T., Jabalpur. The case was originally filed before the Civil Court by the Bank for recovery of Rs. 57,49,864.15 together with contracted rate of interest for pendente lite and future along with cost and other usual reliefs. In this case also only the appellants had put in appearance, other defendants did not appear and other facts remain the same as has been enumerated above in respect of the other appeal.