( 1 ) THE appellant Bank, is the original-respondent, at whose instance, by this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the challenge is made against the judgment and order passed on 3rd July 2002 by the learned Single Judge [coram: D. A. Mehta, J. ], inter alia, contending that the impugned order, quashing the order dated 5th May 1999 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, is unjust and illegal.

( 2 ) THE respondents, in this Letters Patent Appeal, are the original-petitioners and the appellant is the original-respondent Bank. The appellant Bank initiated legal battle by filing Original Application No. 110 of 1998 against the respondents before the Debt Recovery Tribunal [drt] claiming a sum of Rs. 4,07,32,789/= with costs and future interests invoking the provisions of Section 17 and 19 of The Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [act]. The DRT, by its order dated 4/5-5-1999, allowed the Original Application No. 110 of 1998 in favour of the appellant against the respondents as despite seeking adjournment for filing reply failed to file the reply. The matter was, thereafter, posted on several dates. On behalf of the appellant, affidavit came to be filed in support of the Original Application. Again, the matter was adjourned and, on several dates, the respondents did not appear.

( 3 ) PURSUANT to the order of DRT, the appellant Bank started recovery proceedings, like that execution of the order dated 5-5-1999. The respondents filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2001 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 5-5-1999, with a prayer for condonation of delay of 760 days which came to be rejected by the Presiding Officer of the DRT by a speaking order dated 5. 11. 2001. The respondents, therefore, challenged the said order of rejection of Civil Misc. Application No. 18 of 2001, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 3. 7. 2002, which is directly under challenge before us in this Letters Patent Appeal.

( 4 ) WE have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also dispassionately considered the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 and the case law relied on by the learned advocates in course of the submissions to which reference will be made hereinafter.

( 5 ) SECTION 19, in Chapter IV of the Act provides the procedure of Tribunal. Section 20 of the Act reads 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 forty-five days 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), 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 filed before the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal finally within six months from the date of receipt of the appeal. "it could very well be visualised from the aforesaid p