AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is the fourth respondent in T.A.No.600 of 1997 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. The first respondent/Bank filed a
suit on 26.4.1996 in O.S.No.406 of 1996 which where numbered as T.A.No.600 of 1997 for recovery of sum of Rs.63,80,032 with further
interest at 24.75% per annum with quarterly rest. The principal amount borrowed by the petitioner as per the Statement of Account is
Rs.34,59,328. The petitioner moved the Tribunal for production of certain documents to enable him to file his reply statement. The Tribunal, by an
order dated 20.2.1998 in I.A. No.116 of 1998 in T.A. No.600 of 1997 allowed the I.A. and directed the respondents therein to produce the
records so as to enable the petitioner to file reply statement. Even after getting the papers, the petitioner could not file the reply statement till April
1999 and on subsequent date of hearing. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 6.4.1999, the petitioner/fourth defendant was
ready with the reply statement, but could not represent the matter since he was engaged in another Court and hence, in the said T.A., the petitioner
was set ex parte. It is averred that on representation on the same day, that the petitioner was ready with the reply statement, the Tribunal observed
that he may file a petition to set aside the ex parte order along with the reply statement. Thereafter, he filed I.A.Nos. 1336 and 1337 of 1999 in
T.A.No.600 of 1997 to set aside the ex parte order and to file reply statement. Thereafter, he filed I.A.Nos.1336 and 1337 of 1999 in
T.A.No.600 of 1997 to set aside the ex parte order and to file reply statement. The Tribunal allowed I.A.Nos.1336 and 1337 of 1999 on
condition that the petitioner pays 1/5 of the suit claim on or before 27.10.1999. This revision is filed against the said order.
From the facts and circumstances of the case it is seen that the petitioner''s defence mainly relates to the interest portion. There is no dispute in
reference to the principal amount which remains unpaid from the year 1991. The petitioner could not even file his reply statement for nearly one
year even after the earlier order for production of the copies of the documents by C.B.I. The learned Judge, considering all these, thought it fit that
the order must be made on terms.
In my view, the order of the learned Judge is purely a discretionary order and I find that the Tribunal has exercised its discretion considering the
facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order. However, if the petitioner finds it difficult to pay the
amount in one lumpsum, he can seek appropriate orders for paying the amount in two instalments.
With the above direction, the revision is dismissed, consequently, C.M.P.No.19442 of 1999 is dismissed.