HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 33/2022

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.

----Appellant

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.

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 (Raj)

3.

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

about 59 years, R/o Ward No. 10, Pithawali, Tehsil

Kotputali, District Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. R.K. Daga

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Pankaj Gupta

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order

13/12/2022

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The bank initiated proceedings for the recovery against the

petitioner-appellant before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short

‘DRT’). In those proceedings despite notice, the petitioner-

appellant did not appear. Accordingly, an order was passed on

(2 of 2)

[SAW-33/2022]

18.03.2017 to proceed ex-parte. After three years, petitioner-

appellant moved an application for recalling of the above order to

proceed ex-parte, but without moving any application for

condonation of delay. The same was dismissed on 26.10.2021.

Accordingly petitioner-appellant preferred a writ petition which has

been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated

06.12.2021 holding that the petitioner-appellant has a remedy of

filing an appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and

Bankruptcy Act, 1993 before the Appellate Tribunal and for the

reason that he has failed to show any reasonable ground for his

absence before the DRT. The fact of having a remedy of appeal, as

referred to above, is not denied by the petitioner. He only submits

that the order is without jurisdiction and the application was filed

within limitation.

3.

All the above aspects, as contended on behalf of the

petitioner-appellant, can be taken and considered in appeal before

the Appellate Tribunal.

4.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not

consider it appropriate to interfere with the order passed by the

Writ Court and the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the

petitioner-appellant to avail the alternate remedy of appeal before

the Appellate Tribunal.

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

(PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ

N.Gandhi/Lakshya Sharma/40