JUDGMENT :

H.S. Thangkhiew, J.

1. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed assailing the impugned orders dated 05.12.2017 allowing O.A. No. 25 of 2017 and order dated 30.08.2021, rejecting a review application being RA. No. 1/2018 in O.A. No. 25 of 2017, by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati.

2. The petitioners have alleged that in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, there has been a flagrant abuse of the principles of natural justice and that there is error of law patent on the face of the record, which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. The allegation of the petitioners, is founded on the fact that the proceedings and judgment rendered was done ex parte and the petitioners, were unjustly deprived of an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

3. The background facts in brief, are that on the default by the Petitioner Company on the re-payment of loan along with interest, the respondent Bank had filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati for recovery of Rs.30,79,24,469/- (Rupees Thirty Crores Seventy-Nine Lakhs Twenty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Nine only), and the said application was registered as O.A. No. 25/2017. On receipt of notice, the petitioners appeared on 10.03.2017 and the next date was fixed on 11.04.2017 for filing of vakalatnama on behalf of the other petitioners, and for written statement, which however while filing the vakalat, the petitioners, prayed for further time to file written statement. The matter was then fixed on 12.05.2017, and on that date the matter was then adjourned to 29.05.2017. On 29.05.2017, further time was again prayed by the petitioners for filing written statement, which was allowed by the Tribunal and the next date was fixed on 29.06.2017. On 29.06.2017 because of summer vacations, the case was again fixed on 31.07.2017. On this date on the failure of the petitioners to file the written statement which was duly recorded by the learned Tribunal, the right of the petitioners to file their written statement-cum-evidence on affidavit stood closed, and the matter was then fixed for final hearing on 04.09.2017. The petitioners then by way of I.A. 375/2017, filed for vacating the order dated 31.07.2017, along with a prayer for accepting their written statement and evidence on affidavit. On this application, the learned Tribunal allowed the respondent Bank to file its objections and the matter was then fixed for 26.10.2017. On 26.10.2017, the learned Tribunal finding that no cogent reasons had been given as to why the written statement could not be filed from 10.03.2017 to 31.10.2017, then rejected the I.A. 375/2017 and fixed the matter for final hearing on 23.11.2017. The matter was then subsequently heard, and the judgment was pronounced and recovery certificate issued on 05.12.2017.

4. The petitioners thereafter preferred a review application being RA 1 of 2018 under Section 22(2)(e) and Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Act , 1993 for review of the judgment dated 05.12.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal, to which the respondent Bank filed objections thereto. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties then by the second impugned order dated 30.08.2021, dismissed the said review application.

5. Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioners