IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 OP (DRT) NO. 66 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2024 IN MA NO.290 OF 2021 IN OA NO.243 OF 2018 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:

RAJEEV R. KAMMATH, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNA RAMA KAMMATH, 39, JM GARDEN, PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 023.

BY ADVS.

S.S.ARAVIND SANKARANARAYANAN.P TINU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MANAGER, MUVATTUPUZHA BRANCH, KAVIKUNNEL CHAMBERS, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 688 861.

BY ADV M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR (SC)

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, in M.A.No.290/2021 in O.A.No.243/2018. M.A.No.290/2021 was filed seeking to set aside the ex parte order in O.A.No.243/2018. O.A.No.243/2018 was disposed of on 18-03-2021 by Ext.P1 order allowing the original application filed by the respondent bank.

2. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that the petitioner had entrusted the conduct of O.A.No.243/2018 with a counsel, but he could not file a written statement in time on account of the fact that he was laid up due to Covid-19. It is submitted that when O.A.No.243/2018 was taken up on 24-02-2021, the counsel for the petitioner could not join the proceedings online, on account of which the petitioner was set ex parte. It is stated that the petitioner came to know of the final order only on 08-11-2021 when he received a copy of the order, and immediately thereafter he filed M.A.No.290/2021 seeking to set aside the ex parte order. The Tribunal by Ext.P4 order dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte order on the ground that though the petitioner had entered appearance before the Tribunal on 08-08-2018, no written statement was filed till 24-02-2021. It was found that the conduct of the petitioner in not filing the written statement indicates that he had not been sincere and diligent in defending the case.

3. Sri. M.R. Gopalakrishnan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioner. It is submitted that a reading of Ext.P4 order will indicate that the petitioner was not interested in defending the claim made by the respondent bank in O.A.No.243/2018. It is submitted that, as rightly found by the Tribunal, the fact that the petitioner had not filed any written statement in the O.A.No.243/2018, though he had entered appearance on 08-08-2018, is sufficient to indicate that the petitioner was not interested in defending the claim made by the respondent bank before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the lockdown on account of the Covid-19 pandemic was only in the month of March, 2020, and for nearly 1 ½ years after entering appearance, the petitioner had not even cared to file a written statement. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioner has not made out any case for interference with Ext.P4 order.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am of the opinion that one final opportunity can be given to the petitioner to contest O.A.No.243/2018 on merits. A reading of Ext.P1 final order will show that O.A.No.243/2018 was heard through the video conferencing method on account of the Covid-19 pandemic. While it is true that the petitioner had not filed any written statement after entering appearance on 08-08-2018, the fact remains that the conduct of litigation in various Courts and Tribunals across the country had been seriously affected on account of the Covid-19 pandemic and the imposition of the national lockdown. However, since the petitioner had not file