IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4971 of 2011
Jagjit Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India & Ors. ... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s Ajit Kumar & Navin Kumar, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
-----
03/14.09.2011
: Heard the parties.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for
recovery of the amount due to be paid by the Borrower, the Bank filed a case
before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi against this petitioner being a
guarantor as well as the Borrower.
According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
notice was issued to the petitioner and also to other parties on 26.03.2010 in
which date of appearance was put as 21.04.2010. Thereupon, without having
service report, the Tribunal proceeded to pass an order for taking step for
substituted service by getting the notice published in the Newspaper.
Accordingly notice was published in the Daily Newspaper-The Prabhat Khabar
Ranchi Edition whereas the petitioner is the permanent resident of Noida
(U.P.) and as such the petitioner never came to know about the said
proceeding. On publication of notice, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi
passed an order on 23.03.2011, whereby it was held that the Bank is entitled
to receive a sum of Rs.15,59,987.86 paise from the borrower and also
guarantor, who were held to be liable jointly and severely to make payment of
the said amount though the bank during pendency of the said case, got the
vehicle attached and sold it out but the amount realised never got adjusted
towards the decreetal amount. That order is under challenge.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does
appear that the stand, which has been taken by the petitioner, is that an
exparte order has been passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi against
the petitioner, if that is so, remedy lies before the same authority whereby an
application, for setting aside of the ex parte order, can be filed under Section
22(2) (g) of the Recovery of Debt Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act,
1993. Therefore, the petitioner may prefer an application for setting aside the
ex parte order. If that application is filed , it would be open for the petitioner to
file an application for staying the execution proceeding, till the application, filed
for setting aside exparte order, is decided.
Accordingly, with this observation, this writ application stands
disposed of.
(R.R. Prasad, J.)
Ravi/