THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 01/05/2023, IN O.A. NO. 1870/2016 ON THE FILE OF DRT-1, BENGALURU IN ANNEXURE-F PLACING THE PETITIONER AS EXPARTE (ABSENT) AND DIRECT THE LEARNED JUDGE IN O.A. 1870/2016, ON THE FILE OF DRT-1 BENGALURU ANNEXURE-B TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTEST THE CASE ON MERITS BY GRANTING OPPORTUNITY TO FILE OBJECTIONS, IN CONCERN OF PETITIONER ONLY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

PRAYER

"WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-

i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ so as to quash the impugned order dated 1.5.2023, in O.A No. 1870/2016 on the file of DRT-1, Bengaluru in Annexure-F placing the petitioner as exparte (absent).

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the learned Judge in O.A. 1870/2016, on the file of DRT-1, Bengaluru, in Annexure-B to permit the petitioner to contest the case on merits by granting opportunity to file objections, in concern of petitioner only.

iii) Issue such other direction as this Hon'ble court may deems fit to grant, under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The petitioner who is the borrower was placed ex-parte by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Then the petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.130/2022 under Section 22 (H) & (F) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 2002 (for short 'Act') seeking to recall the order dated 10.09.2020.

3. I.A.No.130/2022 came to be dismissed by order impugned whereby the Tribunal had observed that under the circumstances, the reason stated by the petitioner/1st defendant for the non-appearance of the counsel on 10.09.2020 cannot be easily accepted and the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant Bank that its attempt is to protract recovery of amount due from it cannot be lightly brushed aside. If defendants are allowed to remain absent when cases come up for return of summons and get ex- parte orders set aside on flimsy grounds like this and that too even after the applicant Bank had adduced its evidence, they can protract cases against them as desired by them, which in effect would defeat the very objective of expeditious recovery under the Act and accordingly dismissed the application.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no intention to protract the proceedings. It is submitted that if an opportunity is not given to the petitioner, it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioner. It is submitted that he was set ex-parte during the COVID-19 period. It is submitted that if a fair opportunity is given to the petitioner, he would proceed with the matter without delaying the same.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent/Bank submits that right from the year 2023 till now, the petitioner is enjoying the interim order. In fact in O.A.No.1870/2016, the evidence is completed. Now, if this writ petition is allowed, prejudice will be caused to the respondent/Bank. The O.A. is filed in the year 2016 and even after ten years also, the Bank could not realize the amount.

6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. Whenever an application is filed seeking recall of the order, the Tribunal would necessarily consider the reasons for recalling the order. As rightly observed by the DRT, the reasons that are stated by the petitioner cannot be the grounds on which the earlier order can be recalled. But this Court is looking at the substantial interest of both the parties. The O.A. is filed in the year 2016 and till 2023, the matter was pending. Again in the year 2023, the petitioner has come up before this