ORDER
K.S. Kumaran, Chairperson
1. Heard Counsel and perused the records.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that this appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.1.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’) in O.A. 168/2001, by which the right of the appellant to file the written statement was closed without the appellant having been supplied with the copy of the paper book as contemplated under Rules 9 and 11 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.
3. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent states that the grievance of the appellant can be redressed today itself by supplying the copy of the paper book. Mr. Ashim Vachcher also states that even on the previous dates of hearing the 1st respondent was ready with the copy of the paper book to be supplied to the appellant. Today, in Court, Mr. Vachcher has handed over the copy of the paper book in O.A. 168/2001 to Mr. B.C. Parakh, the learned Counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the first grievance of the appellant has been redressed.
4. The second grievance of the appellant is that the right of the appellant herein to file the written statement has been closed, and that as a consequence, the said order should be set aside permitting the appellant to file the written statement.
5. In my view, this request is also reasonable, and the rejection of the same will amount to violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the complete paper book has been furnished to the learned Counsel for the appellant only today. Therefore, the order closing the right of the appellant to file the written statement is also set aside. Consequentially, the appellant (5th defendant) is permitted to file his written statement to the O.A, within four weeks from today before the DRT.
6. Another grievance put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT has observed in the impugned order that while the order was being dictated, Mr. R.G. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the 5th defendant (appellant herein) appeared in Court, and that it appears that he was watching the proceedings from outside and when the order against him was to be dictated, he appeared. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that these observations cast a stigma on the character and conduct of the Counsel, and that the learned Presiding Officer ought not to have and should not have passed such order, which will have the effect of casting a stigma on the Counsel, without even giving him an opportunity to repudiate the same and put forward his own case. He contends that this again in a violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, these remarks should be expunged,
7. In my view, this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is well taken, and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, before ever he made these observations, ought to have granted an opportunity to the Counsel concerned of putting forward his case. The perusal of the records does not show that any such opportunity was given. Therefore, these remarks, which have the effect of casting a cloud and stigma over the character and conduct of the Counsel, have to be expunged, and they are, accordingly, expunged.
8. Mr. B.C. Parakh, the learned Counsel for the appellant, states that the O.A. 168/2001 is now fixed before the DRT on 9.7.2004. The parties, through their Counsel, are directed to appear before the DRT on the said date and take further directions from the DRT. However, as directed already, the appellant-5th defendant shall file his written statement within four weeks from today with a copy to the Counsel opposite.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
10. Copy of this order be furnished to the appellant, the 1st respondent, and also be forwarded to the concerned DRT.