ORDER :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. Patel Haribhai Chaturbhai and Patel Ghanshyambhai Lavjibhai – present Appellants have approached this Court by way of the present Letters Patent Appeal challenging the oral judgement dated 28.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1497 of 2007. By the oral Judgement under challenge, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition of the Appellants confirming the Order passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal.

2. The Appellants were the original Petitioners who had challenged the order dated 04.10.2006 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal whereby the Judgement and Award dated 10.03.2003 passed by the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad in Lavad Suit No. 1970 of 2002 has been confirmed. The learned Single Judge briefly recorded the chequered history of the case and for the benefit of the present Judgement, the facts as reproduced in para 2.1 of the judgement of the learned Single Judge reads as under:

2.1 The respondent-Bank had advanced a loan of Rs.20,00,000/ to a firm named S.B.Traders (“the Borrower”, for short). It is the case of the petitioners that in respect of the said loan transaction, they consented to become guarantors for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/ only. The Borrower failed to repay the loan advanced, therefore, the respondent Bank filed the abovementioned Lavad case before the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad, for the recovery of Rs.28,56,848/ with running interest at the rate of 22.50% with effect from 01.06.2002. The Bank prayed for a decree of recovery of the aforesaid sum from all the defendants of the suit, including the petitioners, who were arrayed as defendants Nos.4 and 5, respectively. In the said suit, the petitioners preferred an application for leave to defend vide Exhibits18 and 23. By an order dated 16.12.2002, the Board of Nominees granted conditional leave to defend to each of the petitioners, on the payment of 13.50% of the suit claim. Thereafter, by a judgment and award dated 10.03.2003, the Board of Nominees decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-Bank, directing the defendants, including the present petitioners, to pay the said amount with running interest at the rate of 22.50% per annum. The petitioners preferred Review Applications Nos.82/2003 and 83/2003 before the Board of Nominees for recalling the judgment and award dated 10.03.2003 as, according to them, it was passed in the absence of the petitioners and their advocates. The Board of Nominees granted an interim stay of the said judgment and award, by an order dated 12.05.2003. Thereafter, the applications preferred by the petitioners were rejected by an order dated 17.12.2003. The petitioners preferred application No.68/2004 and the other Borrower filed application No.69/2004 against the aforesaid judgment and award of the Board of Nominees, before the Tribunal. Initially, the Tribunal, by an order dated 29.01.2004, granted an interim stay of the impugned judgment and award. Thereafter, this order of the Tribunal dated 29.01.2004, was challenged by the respondent-Bank by preferring a petition, being Special Civil Application No.2224/2004 before this Court. By an interim order dated 23.02.2004, this Court directed the respondents therein, including the present petitioners, to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ each. The petition was finally disposed of by an order dated 21.09.2004, by noticing that the sum of Rs.5,00,000/ has not been deposited by the petitioners, therefore, there would be no interim relief in their favour against the judgment and order passed by the Board of Nominees and the Bank would be free to initiate recovery proceedings. Meanwhile, the Tribunal, by an order dated 30.06.2004, rejected the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners. Against the order dated 30.06.2004, the petitioners again preferred Review Application No.44/2004 before the Tribunal, which came to be allowed by the judgment and order dated 11.04.2005. While doin