JUDGMENT :

SANJIV BERRY, J.

1. Both the aforesaid writ petitions are being taken up for decision in this single order as the prayer sought for therein is essentially for the quashing of the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by respondent No.1, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in Misc. Appeal No. 468 of 2018 titled as “M/s Shakti Bhog Snacks Limited vs. Corporation Bank & Others” and the consequent orders passed by DRT-III Chandigarh in both the petitions.

2. Brief facts of the case, CWP-26365-2019, in nut shell, are that the respondent Bank had filed OA No.1332 of 2018 titled as ‘Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. A.G. Oils Pvt. Ltd. And Others’ under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RDB Act, 1993’) seeking the recovery of amount due alongwith interest. Notice was issued on 15.06.2018 to the defendants calling them to appear on 08.11.2018 vide Annexure P-2. The petitioners have placed on record the copies of orders passed by the learned DRT-III, Chandigarh from 08.11.2018 to 07.06.2019 (Annexure P-3) to plead that on account of non-availability of the Presiding Officer the case was adjourned from 08.11.2018 to 12.03.2019 and then to 08.05.2019.

2.1. On 08.05.2019 the counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.1 to 6 had filed power of attorney while defendant No. 7 to 8 were proceeded against ex-parte. The Bank was directed to supply copy of paper-book to defendant No.1 to 6 and the case was adjourned to 07.06.2019 for filing of written statement.

2.2. The defendants (petitioners herein) prepared the written statement on 17.05.2019 as is apparent from the attestation of the Oath Commissioner for filing the same on the next date i.e. 07.06.2019, but on 07.06.2019 the learned Presiding Officer was not available and the case was adjourned to 02.08.2019 and on account of bona fide belief that the written statement is to be filed by the next date, the petitioners filed the written statement on 01.08.2019 being prior to the next date of hearing i.e. 02.08.2019. It is pleaded that, had the case been taken up on 07.06.2019 the petitioner could have filed the written statement on that date itself, however it was on account of the Presiding Officer having gone to attend the duties of DRT, Jaipur on that day, the matter was adjourned to 02.08.2019.

2.3. On 02.08.2019 the learned Presiding Officer however, refused to take the written statement on record and struck off the defense of the petitioners by passing the impugned order 02.08.2019 (Annexure P-5) and adjourned the case to 28.08.2019 for passing final orders in terms of the order dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned DRAT, Delhi, duly circulated to all the DRTs for passing of the judgment/order straightway once defendants were proceeded ex-parte on their defense is struck off. Thereafter, on 28.08.2019, the impugned order (Annexure P-6) was passed.

3. Brief facts pleaded in CWP-25611-2022 are that the respondent Bank had filed OA No.2633-2018 for recovery of its alleged dues along with interest. Vide order dated 05.11.2018 (Annexure P-5) learned DRT-III, Chandigarh issued notice for 03.04.2019 and on 03.04.2019 (Annexure P-6) fresh notice was directed to be issued for 06.08.2019 (copy of notice dated 05.04.2019 Annexure P-7). Pursuant to the receipt of notice, the petitioners engaged Mr. Akashdeep Miglani, Advocate to represent and defend them.

3.1. On 06.08.2019 the case was listed before learned DRT-III, Chandigarh at serial No.37 and when their counsel entered the Court room at 10:32 am the matter at serial No. 39 had already been taken and the counsel was astonished to know that petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte to which he requested to learned Presiding Officer, who told him that his request would be heard after taking all the cases. The learned Presiding Officer after proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner had fixed the case for 14.11.2019 for passing of the judgment, in terms of the judgment of DRAT Del