Court or Tribunal can not mechanically declare a party ex-parte.

K.K. Sasidharan, J.

.1. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner has impugned the order of the seventh respondent dated 13. 2007 in M.A. No.12 of 2007 confirming the order of the sixth respondent dated 1. 2006 in I.A. No.504 of 2006 in T.A. No.729 of 2002 (W.P. No.15155 of 2007) and the order dated 13. 2007 in M.A. No.13 of 2007 confirming the order of the sixth respondent dated 1. 2006 in I.A. No.505 of 2006 in T.A. No.729 of 2002 (W.P. No.15156 of 2007).

.2. The factual matrix necessary for disposal of the Writ Petitions are as below:

.The first respondent herein preferred O.A. No.277 of 2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai against the petitioner herein and respondents 2 to 4 for a decree directing them to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,81,537.77 along with subsequent interest and the said O.A. was later transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai and renumbered as O.A. No.834 of 2001. From the records, it is found that vakalat was filed on behalf of all the defendants and reply statement was also filed contesting the claim of the bank. Subsequently, when the matter was pending for filing proof affidavit by the bank, the matter was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore and as such, the matter was transmitted to the Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore and as per the printed notice found in the case records, the parties were directed to appear in person or through their counsel before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore on 6. 2002. Subsequently, the matter was taken on file before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore as T.A. No.729 of 2002 and the petitioner ho was arrayed as defendant No.4 as well as the other defendants was set ex parte and finally an ex parte order was passed on 210. 2004.

3. The petitioner filed Applications in I.A. Nos.504 and 505 of 2006 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore for setting aside the ex parte order dated 210. 2004 made in T.A. No.729 of 2002 and also to condone the delay of 541 days in filing the Application to set aside the ex parte order. Those Applications were dismissed as per order dated 12. 2006 which culminated in ling Appeal by the petitioner before the seventh respondent in M.A. Nos.12 and 13 of 2007 and those Appeals were also dismissed as per order dated 14.03.2007. The present Writ Petitions are directed against the said common order dated 13. 2007 on the file of the seventh respondent.

.4. In the affidavit filed in support of the Application to set aside the ex-rte order as well as to condone the delay in filing the said Application, the petitioner contended that the third respondent herein was working at her residence and without her knowledge, he removed the document of title in respect of her property and appears to have deposited the same with the first respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that she has not executed any document much less mortgage deed in favour of the first respondent-Bank, and he came to know of the ex parte order and the proceedings pertaining to the same only on 23. 2006, when one Mr. Duraisamy and others came to the property to take possession alleging that he has become the owner of the property having purchased the same in public auction on 12. 2005. Immediately the petitioner preferred a Police Complaint and also filed the Application to set aside the ex parte order along with an Application to condone the delay.

5. The first respondent-Bank filed counter and opposed the Application to set aside the ex parte order as well as the application to condone the delay and in the said counter, the first respondent denied the various allegations made by the petitioner and contended that the property was mortgaged by the petitioner by deposit of title deeds and the petitioner was having knowledge about the proceedings and as such, prayed for dismissal of the Application.

6. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, as per order dated 12. 2006, dismissed the Application to condone the dela