The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 41 Rules 11 and 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowing for the restoration of an appeal if the appellant was prevented from appearing due to sufficient cause.

JUDGMENT

Suvra Ghosh, J. - The Union of India is represented.

2. Respondent numbers 1 and 4 are represented and the other respondents are found absent on call despite service of notice upon them.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that opposite party no. 3 Bharat Process and Mechanical Engineers Ltd. obtained credit facility from respondent no. 1 UCO Bank and defaulted in repayment of the same resulting in institution of a civil suit by opposite party no. 1. The petitioner stood guarantor to such loan to the extent of Rs. 250 lakhs. The civil suit was transferred before the DRT-1 and registered as T.A. No. 216 of 1994. The said case was allowed with the following observations:-

(i) "The UCO Bank, the respondent no. 1 herein was entitled to realize a sum of Rs. 1,92,12,957.92p. from the defendant no. 3;

(ii) The UCO Bank, the respondent no. 1 herein was also entitled to realize a sum of Rs. 2,16,13,312.35p. from the Petitioner and Respondent no. 3 jointly;

(iii) The respondent no. 1 (UCO bank) was entitled to realize interest at the rate of 19.5% per annum on the aforesaid certificate amount;

(iv) The respondent no. 3, Bharat Process and Mechanical Engineers Ltd. was restrained from selling and/or transferring its suit property;

(v) The respondent bank was entitled to realize its certificate amount by sale of the suit property and certificate was directed to be prepared;"

4. Subsequently on 17-11-2009 the aforesaid decree/certificate of more than 4 crores was wrongfully assigned by opposite party no. 1 in favour of opposite party no. 2 upon consideration of meagre sum of Rs. 55 Lakhs. After addition of opposite party no. 2 as a co-certificate holder in the proceeding, the certificate was put into execution before the recovery officer, who on 06-10-2010, passed an order of attachment of the shares which were not the assets of the company in liquidation i.e. Opposite Party no. 3 Bharat Process and Mechanical Engineers Ltd. On the prayer of opposite party no. 2, the recovery officer passed an order for sale of the shares vide order dated 23-03- 2011. Opposite party no. 4 preferred an appeal against the said order before the DRT which was disposed of vide order dated 23-02-2012 with the following directions :-

"....... However the Union of India may discharge its liability as decided in this matter by transferring these shares in favour of Respondent No. 2 or by another way. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may proceed under the Recovery Proceeding to recover the dues in respect of the other properties of Certificate Debtor Nos. 1 and 2 in accordance with law."

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the DRAT) against the said order, being Appeal No. 118 of 2012 after expiry of the statutory period of time for filing the same for which the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was taken out and was allowed by the DRAT.

6. In course of hearing the appeal, the DRAT observed that three orders could not be challenged in a single appeal and granted liberty to the petitioner to delete prayers (e) and (f) of the appeal. Due to change of the panel of lawyers of the petitioner the said directions of the DRAT could not be complied with and the matter was called on and dismissed on 06-04-2015. The petitioner immediately filed an application for restoration of the appeal but the said application was considered and dismissed by the DRAT by the order impugned dated 12-02-2018.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner has come up before this court praying for setting aside the same and restoring the appeal to its file and for consideration of the same by the DRAT on merits.

8. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Union of India that the order of the DRAT dated 10-03-2015 could not be complied with by the appellant as there was a change in the panel of advocates representing the petitioner and the newly appointed advoc