Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Roop Kamal Maheswari And Anr. vs Andhra Bank And Ors. on 26 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: II(2003)BC78
ORDER
K.K. Kumaran, J. (Chairperson)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the records on file. Appellants have approached this Tribunal with this appeal against the order dated 18.1.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Delhi, dismissing their applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and for setting aside the final order passed in O.A. 505/97.
2. Concededly, the final order was passed on 20.11.1998. The application to set aside that order was filed on 15.10.1999, nearly after a period of 11 months. A perusal of the order of the learned Presiding Officer shows that even on 9.11.1998, no one had appeared on behalf of the appellants herein (who were defendants 2 and 3 before the DRT) and they were proceeded ex parte. The final order was not passed immediately. It is seen that on 10.11.1998, Counsel for the appellants had appeared before the DRT. Yet no steps had been taken for setting aside the order proceeding ex parte. Consequently, the final order came to be passed. These facts are not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellants. His only contention is that the lawyer had not informed the appellants about the proceedings, and, therefore, the appellants did not at all know about the orders passed in the case. It is easy to throw the blame on the lawyer. But when a claim for recovery of money from the appellants was pending in a Tribunal, the appellants should also be vigilant in defending their case. Even, according to them, the application to set aside the final order was filed on 10.10.1999. There is no acceptable material to show that the appellants in the meanwhile took diligent steps to find out as to what had happened to the case. The conduct of the appellants only goes to show that they have not been diligent in defending their case before the DRT. That is why they had come with the application to set aside the final order after a long delay. No valid or acceptable reason has also been given for not filing the application in time. There is also no acceptable material to show as to when exactly the appellants became aware of the final order, and why it took so much time to move the application to set aside the final order. Therefore, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT rightly held that there is no ground either for condoning such a long delay or for setting aside the final order passed. Even before this Tribunal, the appellants had not been diligent. The appeal was once dismissed for default and had to be restored to file. The conduct of the appellants has throughout been one of negligence and not taking interest in defending the case.
I find no grounds to interfere.
Dismissed in limine. Copy of the order be furnished to the appellants,