HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14085/2021

Vipin Yadav S/o Shri. Ramesh Chand Yadav, Aged About 35

Years, R/o Dhani Bard Ki, Ward No. 30, National Highway No-8,

Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

ICICI Bank Limited, Through Its Authorized Signatory

Having Its Registered Office At Landmark, Race Course

Circle, Vadodara And Corporate Office At ICICI Bank

Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai

And Branch Office At ICICI Bank Ltd., Dhabas Complex,

Near Bus Stand, Shahpura Jaipur Dist., Rajasthan-

303103.

……..Respondents

2.

Shri. Ramesh Chand Soni S/o Shri. Roshan Lal Soni, Aged

About 59 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Pithawali Mo Bachadi,

Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur.

3.

Shri. Vivek Soni S/o Shri. Ramesh Chand Soni, Aged

About 59 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Pithawali, Tehsil

Kotputali, District Jaipur.

----Performa Parties

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. R.K. Daga

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Order

06/12/2021

1.

Petitioner has preferred this Civil Writ Petition aggrieved by

Order dated 26.10.2021 passed by Presiding Officer, Debt

Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby application filed by the

petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside ex-parte

proceedings order dated 18.03.2017, was dismissed by the Court.

(2 of 2)

[CW-14085/2021]

2.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the order

passed by the Court is without jurisdiction. Court has dismissed

the application only on the ground that the application was filed

after delay of three years.

3.

I have considered the contentions.

4.

The order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is

appleable before the Appellate Tribunal as per Section 20 of

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. As per order sheets,

it is evident that petitioner did not accept the notice and an ex-

parte order was passed against the petitioner way back on

18.03.2017.

5.

In the application filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal,

petitioner has not shown any reasonable ground for his absence

on 18.03.2017. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the

Civil Writ Petition, more particularly when the order passed by the

Debt Recovery Tribunal is appleable before the Appellate Tribunal.

6.

Civil Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed.

7.

Stay application stands disposed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

CHANDAN /45