The court emphasized the importance of considering the submissions and documents produced by the parties in reaching a judgment and held that a judgment passed without such consideration was unsustainable.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the judgment dated 07.12.2021 (Annex.4) passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur.

2. Submissions have been made that on 08.11.2021, on the submissions made on behalf of defendants to go to OTS and seeking adjournment, the petition which was pending since 2013 was adjourned to 04.12.2021. On 04.12.2021 as the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was fixed on 07.12.2021 and on 07.12.2021 the Tribunal, only referring to the fact of filing of petition by the Bank, reply by the petitioners and that it had perused the documents, referred to the fact of evidence affidavit filed by the Bank, observed that same clinches the claim of the applicant Bank against the defendants and ordered for payment of the amount claimed by the Bank alongwith interest and ordered for sale of the mortgaged property.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the judgment dated 07.12.2021 has been passed by the DRT only out of rage, as the petitioners and the Bank could not agree on a settlement, which aspect is reflected from the judgment impugned wherein, not a word has been indicated about the defense raised by the petitioners, documents produced and the contest laid to the claim made by the Bank and has passed the judgment as if the petitioners, had filed a consenting written statement, which order is exfacie illegal and therefore, the same alongwith recovery certificate deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. When the petition came up before this Court, a Coordinate Bench of this Court referring to the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh vs. Union of India : Contempt Petition (Civil) No.708/2021 entertained the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank attempted to make submissions that the petitioners even as per their response before Tribunal have no case and, therefore, the judgment impugned does not call for any interference.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. The judgment dated 07.12.2021 passed by the DRT, though marks presence of counsel for the petitioners/defendants, there is no indication worth the name regarding submissions made on behalf of petitioners, reply filed and the documents produced, contesting the claim of the respondent Bank. Passing of the judgment impugned without even referring and/or discussing the same, is essentially only an eyewash on the part of DRT in decreeing the OA filed by the Bank, which cannot be sustained.

8. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 07.12.2021 (Annex.4) as well as the recovery certificate issued by the DRT in OA No.39/2013 are quashed and set aside. The OA is restored to its original number. The parties shall appear before the DRT on 11.01.2023, on which date, the Tribunal shall fix a date for final arguments and on that date, after hearing the parties, the matter shall be decided in accordance with law. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not attempt to delay the proceedings before the Tribunal in any manner.