petitioner prays for setting aside the judgment and order dated 29.12.2023 and to restore TOA/711/2017 in its original file. Opposite party/applicant of the O.A. case filed their written objection stating inter-alia that the defendant No. 2 has filed this MA only on 29.01.2024, almost 14 years later from original case i.e. OA/784/201 O, to cause delay and to intentionally and unnecessarily drag the matter to cover up for his own negligence. The plea of the respondent bank is that the defendant No. 2 did not come before this Hon'ble Tribunal with clean intention. It has been contended by the respondent bank is that it is a transfer matter from DRT-11 Kolkata to DRT-Siliguri and vide order of Ld. Registrar of DRTSiliguri dated 19.06.2023, the applicant Bank had served the summons upon the defendants and on 24.07.2023 in the order of Ld. Registrar it is clearly mentioned that the Counsel for all the defendants had appeared and undertaken to file the Vakalatnama \ ~ rt-~ ~~ ,. <l0c,v ~ 0 ·'\~~ . <._\ represented by his advocate . and moreover, copy of paper-book . Is already provided to :,,,_e:, ~ s' <0~'<j the Ld. Counsel of the defendants, vide order dated 14.08.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and on that day also Ld. Counsel of the defendants had undertaken to file the W.S within 4 weeks. According to the respondent bank the reasons given by the defendant No. 2 in the present application does not constitute as a sufficient cause to set aside the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. Further, Ld. Advocate for the defendant No. 1 has already filed the W.S. as well as WNA, which has already been adjudicated. Moreover, several opportunities were given to the all the defendants, to file their W.S. but the defendant No. 2 did not file the W.S. even after completion of service as well as after appearance of his Advocate. 3. , - ,c,e<.. .g.n next date and hence, it is absolutely false statement that the defendant No. 2 was not 0 e.:,,'('~e.
