Orders made by Debts Recovery Tribunal are appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, prohibiting judicial intervention absent exhaustion of statutory remedies.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Penjuri Venugopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank, in both the petitions.

2. The respondent-bank filed OA No.98 of 2014 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Visakhapatnam, (in short 'Tribunal') against the petitioner and others. The petitioner is the 3rd defendant in the said O.A. The O.A., was allowed, by order, dated 18.08.2017.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 18.08.2017, the Tribunal closed the evidence of defendant as there was no evidence on behalf of the defendant, and passed the aforesaid ex parte order. As there was 10 days delay in filing the restoration application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 18.08.2017, he filed MA No.106 of 2017 in OA No.98 of 2014 for condonation of delay. The application was dismissed on 10.01.2020, on the ground that the O.A., was allowed on merits, and it was not an ex parte order.

4. Challenging the same order, the petitioner filed present two revision petitions, one with respect to rejection of the application for condonation of delay and the other against the order refusing to set aside the order, dated 18.08.2017.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was ex parte. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-bank submits that the order in O.A., was not ex parte. The petitioner filed written arguments as well. This has been disputed by the petitioner's Counsel submitting that the written arguments were not taken on record.

6. Be that as it may. We are not on the point if the order, dated 18.08.2017 was ex parte or not.

7. On our specific enquiry to the entertainability of the present civil revision petitions on the ground of alternate remedy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders under challenge are not appealable. He submits that only those orders are appealable by which the Tribunal either grants stay or rejects the stay.

8. We are not satisfied. The submission deserves rejection.

9. Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (in short 'Act 1993') provides as under :

"20. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.-(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act, may prefer an appeal to an Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter.

(2) No appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal from an order made by a Tribunal with the consent of the parties.

(3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order made, or deemed to have been made, by the Tribunal is received by him and it shall be in such form and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed : Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of [thirty days] [Substituted by Act No.44 of 2016.] if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.

(4) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), [or under sub-section (1) of Section 181 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016] [Inserted by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 249 .] the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against.

(5) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to the parties to the appeal and to the concerned Tribunal.

(6) The appeal file