State Bank Of India v. K.Kalaiarasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.02.2019 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(PD) No.3128 of 2018 State Bank of India Pinnalur Branch Pinnalur - 608 704 Cudddalore District Rep. By its Branch Manager .. Petitioner v.
1 K..Kalaiarasan 2 The Registrar Debt Recovery Tribunal-III Deva Towers, Mount Road Chennai .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 31.07.2018 passed in O.A.No.418 of 2016 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Pothiraj For Respondents :No appearance
O R D E R
(Order of the Court made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice and M.DURAISWAMY,J.) Challenging the order passed in O.A.No.418 of 2016, dated 31.07.2018, on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, the Bank has filed the above Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner-bank filed an application in O.A.No.418 of 2016, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs.27,05,960/- together with interest and for other reliefs.
3. The petitioner filed the proof affidavit on 03.02.2017. The respondent No.1 remained absent before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, when the matter was listed for hearing on 31.07.2018 Though the Junior counsel represented the counsel on record on behalf of the petitioner-bank, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, erroneously dismissed the Original Application for non-prosecution.
4. When the counsel is representing his/her Senior Counsel, the Tribunal cannot dismiss the Original Application for non-prosecution. The Original Application can be dismissed for non-prosecution, only when there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Merely because the counsel on record did not appear on a particular day and only his Junior had appeared, that will not amount to non-prosecution of the matter. The Debts Recovery Tribunal must have accepted the submission made by the Junior Counsel without dismissing the O.A. for dismissal.
5. It is pertinent to note that when the bank is dealing with the public money, utmost caution should be taken by the Tribunal while dismissing the Original Application for non-prosecution, that too, when the Junior Counsel made a representation before it.
6. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted bank to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai for deciding the Application in
O.A.No.418 of 2016, on merits and in accordance with law. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai is directed to decide O.A.No.418 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible.
With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
(V.K.T., CJ.) (M.D., J.) 07.02.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Rj To The Registrar Debt Recovery Tribunal-III Deva Towers, Mount Road Chennai
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND M. DURAISWAMY,J.
Rj C.R.P.(PD) No.3128 of 2018 07.02.2019