The Patna Bench dismissed an application seeking restoration of a mutation application dismissed for default. The court found the applicant was engaging in delaying tactics by repeatedly filing on identical grounds of counsel illness while pending other litigation involving the same bank.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY
TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Office action taken with date
Order with the signature of the Court
SI. Date of Order No. or Proceedings MA 139/2022 Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. The Punjab National Bank & Ors. Present Shri Subhen Sarkar, Ld. Advocate. For Applicant 11.04.2023 Dr. Binod Bihari Sinha, Ld. Advocate For Defendant The present MA is moved on behalf of applicant with the prayer to restore the MA 77/2022 as it was dismissed for default for non-prosecution of the matter, on the ground that due to severe chest pain of the conducting counsel of the applicant could not attend the Court as he was under treatment and could not instruct to other counsel to appear on his behalf. It is further stated that there was no deliberate and wilful latches on the part of applicant or his counsel and prayed for restoration of MA 77/2022. Ld. Counsel for respondent vehemently opposed on restoration of the matter and submitted that the applicant the applicant is adopting delaying tactics to foil bank recovery as earlier an SA 106/2021 filed by the applicant which was dismissed for default on 30.4.2022. Thereafter, MA 77/2022 was filed on 19.5.2022 for restoration of SA 106/2021 which was also dismissed for default on 04.07.2022 due to nonprosecution of the matter. Now, the applicant again filed the present MA for restoration of MA 77/2022 which was filed for restoration of SA. Before filing of MA 77/2022, the applicant had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Patna against the S. action of the bank in which Hon'ble Court has given liberty to applicant for settlement with the bank but the applicant didn't avail such opportunities. Moreover, the applicant has filed a Contempt Application before the Hon'ble High Court which is pending. The applicant is only lingering the matter and wants to frustrate the recovery process of bank. On perusal of records, it appears that the SA filed on behalf of applicant was dismissed for default. Thereafter, MA 77/2022 was filed for restoration of said SA which was also dismissed for default. In the MA 77/2022, same ground of illness of applicant's counsel was taken. Further, the present MA has been filed for restoration of MA 7712022 on the same ground of illness of counsel. In the meantime, the applicant had also approached the Hon'ble High Court vide CWJC No. 11776 of 2021 which was disposed of on 03.02.2022. It is also intimated by the bank that a Contempt Petition filed by applicant is pending before Hon'ble Court. In such circumstances it appears that the applicant is taking services of lawyers for other cases while for SA and MA in question, he prefers to the ground of illness of lawyer.
In view of the above, it appears that this application has been moved only to linger the recovery process of the bank. The applicant doesn't appear bonafide and liable to be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly.
~'I\v'1., (Kaushalendra Yadav) Presiding Officer
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for restoration of a matter dismissed for default, filed repeatedly on identical grounds of counsel's illness, can be treated as bona fide.
Whether the applicant's pattern of utilizing judicial processes to delay bank recovery warrants dismissal of the current application.
Arun Kumar Agarwal
The Punjab National Bank & Ors.
Kaushalendra Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
