R.S. Tripathi, Chairperson—This is an appeal filed against an order dated 23-28.3.2007 passed by D.R.T., Allahabad in M.A. No. 13/07 rejecting the application moved by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 17.3.2003 deciding T.A. No. 1628/2000 ex parte.

2. In his application moved before the D.R.T., the present appellant had pleaded that for the proceedings of T.A. No. 1626/2000, he was not served with any notice. According to him he was a victim of the fraud played by defendant No.2, one of the Directors of Idol Commerce Pvt. Ltd. and his signatures were obtained on blank papers for the cash credit facilities granted to above opposite party Idol Commerce Pvt. Ltd. According to the appellant, he had shifted from Kanpur to Raibareilly in connection with his employment and the publication of notice of the T.A. No.1626/2000 in newspaper Amar Ujala was never brought to his notice as there is no wide publication and circulation of above newspaper in, Raibareilly. According to the appellant his tenant Sri K. Sharma found a notice of auction dated 13.7.2004 pasted on the wall of appellant’s house then he informed the appellant who contacted his local counsel who advised him to engage some counsel at Allahabad then he engaged Sri Vibhuti Narain, Advocate at Allahabad, and then on inspection, it was found that the ex parte judgment has been passed on 17.3.2003 without any service of the notices of the T.A. No. 1626/2000 upon appellant then he moved an application for restoration of above case after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment dated 17.3.2003.

3. The appellant had preferred the civil miscellaneous writ petition No.11191 of 2007 wherein Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on 1.3.2007 passed an order for decision on his application pending before the Tribunal expeditiously in accordance with law. The learned D.R.T. in pursuance of the above direction of the Hon’ble High Court passed above order rejecting the application of the appellant and feeling aggrieved with this order, this appeal has been filed.

4. At the admission stage, this Tribunal has heard the Counsel for the appellant and has also gone through the memo of appeal and original record also. It is argued from the side of the appellant that the learned D.R.T. while passing the impugned order has not touched the merits of the case and has not discussed all the grounds taken by the appellant in the restoration application rather it has rejected the restoration application summarily, therefore, for non-compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court the impugned order should be set aside. Direction of Hon’ble High Court was for the D.R.T. to decide the case on merits. He has cited ruling in Raj Kumar v. Prescribed Authority, Moradabad,1 in support of his argument.

5. Having heard the counsel for the appellant this Tribunal after going through the record finds that in the instant case the learned D.R.T. has observed while passing the impugned order that the appellant was a guarantor of the loan advanced to Idol Commerce Pvt. Ltd. and others of which defendant No.2, Rajesh Singhania was one of the Directors. The Tribunal has further observed that a criminal case has been got registered by the Bank against all the Directors as well as against the present appellant who is on bail but in that case except appellant rest of the guarantors and Directors are absconding. The amount of Bank has swollen to the extent of more than Rs. 1.00 crore. The learned Tribunal has observed that the appellant gave his address of Kanpur in the papers of guarantee and he shifted to Raibareilly without any information to the bank about the change of his address. There is no cogent reason from the side of the appellant as to why the appellant did not inform about the change of his address from Kanpur to Raibareilly. The other important fact noted by the learned D.R.T. is that in the instant case the similar restoration application registered as miscellaneous application No. 3