In a miscellaneous application filed under Section 19(25) RDB Act, 1993, petitioners sought to set aside an ex-parte order alleging non-receipt of summons. The court found that summons were duly served based on postal acknowledgments and denied the petition due to lack of bonafides.
MA 25 of 2024 is dismissed; ex-parte order in O.A. 404/22 stands.
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.
THE DEBTS RECOVERY. TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF, SEPTdI.i;;;-,2(/24 PRESENT: sRI. GUMMADI GOPICHAN HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER
MA. NO. 25 oF 2024 IN oA. NO. 404 oF 2022
Between
M/s. Datta Filling Station off : Sy. No. 250t tiz/i, ii!^^a is usem Village, Tirumalayapalem t"tandllf Khammam, Telangana-507 183. And others.
....Applicant/s
And
State Bank of India, SARB Branch, Hyderabad.
...Respondeht/s
DOCKET ORDER DT. 12.09.2024.
This Miscellaneous Application is rrled by the petitioners/ Defendants under Section 19(25) of RDB Act, 1993 toset aside the exparte final order dt.19.06.2023 passed in O.A.4O4122 and to restore the OA.
In the affidavit filed by one V. Nagender representing the petitioners, it is averred that the Petitioners have not received summons personaly and so, they failed to represent the matter on the dates when the o/was called and non-representation of the petitioners in the o.A. is neither w ful nor intentional. Accordingly, prayed to set aside the exparte orders dt.r9.06.2023 passed tno.A.4O4/22. ffi:;ff ,::l:.', "";*, ",,ffius.*ank by n,in g cou n ter opposing the averments lni tV thti Petitio'r6rS.r It is contended that summons were duly servgp *on the-defendants or,"*1g.01.2O23 and thereafter ii-12 SEP aru iJ.tr'.rLU(r t-:r. h W;;$
the matter was called by this Tribunal on 2o.o2.2o23, 1s.03.2023, 28.03.2023, 13.04.2023. Finally on 2g.O4.2O23, the defendants were set exparte and thereafter exparte decree was passed on 79.06.2023. so the contention of the Petitioners/ defendants that summons were not served on them is totaJly false and so, the petitioners failed to establish reasonabre or sufficient cause for setting aside the exparte order dt. 19.06.2023 passed in the O.A. Accordingly, Respondent Bankprayed to dismiss the M.A.
Heard Ld' counsel for the petitioners and Ld. counsel for the Respondent Bank and perused the material brought on record.
No,.t, the point thot aise for d.etermination is uhether the petitioners hauemade out ana ualid ground to set aside the exparte finar orderdt. 19.o6.2023 passed in O.A.404/22?
The specific contention of the petitioners is that summons are not served on the Petitioners herein who are defendants in O.A. 4O4 l2022whereas the Respondent Bank argued that summons are duly served on all the defendants but they failed to appear before this Tribunal and so, they were set exparte and exparte order was passed in O.A.4O4 12O22.
A perusal of the docket in o.A.4o4/22 clearly indicates that summons in o.A are duly served to the defendants No. I to 3 as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements availabre on record. on 20.o2.2022, Ld. Registrar enJorsed that defendants received summons, however for giving an opportunity to the defendants to appear before this Tribunal, the matter was adjourned to 15.03.2022 and thereafter to 28.03.2023, 13.04.2023 and 28.04.2023 and finally when there was no representation, the defendants were set exparte on 28.04.2023 and o.A. was proceeded for Applicants evidence and finaly o.A. was allowed vide orders dt.79.06.2023. so, in view of the above, it is clear that even though all the defendants received summons in the o.A, they fa ed to appear before This Tribunal. Having received summons, by suppressing the said fact, the Petitioners/ defendants rrled the present petition by falsery contending that summons are not servedand no sufficient reason is assigned by the Petitioners in filing petition to set aside the exparte order passed in oA 4O4/222.
So, considering all the circ1ryffi.j --heldthat there are no bonafides on the part of the Petitionersllfeqffit lication to set aside the exparte order dt. 19.06.2023 6ded in d d as such, the petition is devoid of merits. fz, * 12 SEP 21PI
sd/-
Presiding Officer
Accordingly, MA 2512024 is dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether petitioners had made out a valid ground to set aside the ex-parte final order dated 19.06.2023 in O.A. 404/22?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
GUMMADI GOPICHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
