AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
This Appeal is filed against the order passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore in SA 465/2022. By the said order, Learned Presiding Officer directed the physical possession of a portion of the property to be handed over to the Respondents on payment of Rs.1.80 Lakhs. Aggrieved against this order, this Appeal is filed.
2, It is the submission of Learned Counsel for Appellant that neither the Appellant Institution nor its Counsel had, at any point of time, consented for handing over the possession of the Schedule property to the Respondents upon certain payments. However, the Tribunal on erroneous assumption that the Appellant’s Counsel agreed to restore possession on making such amount and expressed no objection in handing over the possession, proceeded to pass such an order. Therefore, this order has to be set aside and possession be restored to the Appellant.
In response, Learned Counsel for Respondents submitted that the order impugned was passed only on the consent expressed by Learned Counsel for Appellant before the Tribunal. As per the order, the Respondents made payments of Rs.1.80 Lakhs and a portion of the property was given possession to the Respondents. Learned Presiding Officer also recorded that on payment made by Respondents, Appellant Financial Institution is willing to give possession of part of the premises. He further submitted that assuming that this order was passed erroneously, Appellant should have immediately filed the objection Memo or an Application to recall the order before the Tribunal. That was not done. This Appeal itself was not filed within the time, but filed with a delay of 77 days. With an afterthought, raising the ground that the Appellant’s Counsel has not given ‘no objection’ for restoration of portion of property on certain payments. Thus, the Learned Counsel for Respondents prays for dismissal of this Appeal.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
Admittedly, Learned Presiding Officer recorded that “Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI submitted that the Applicant has paid the amounts, as agreed upon and the Respondent FI is also willing to give possession of the portion of the premises, which required for the Applicant’s business activities, and the Applicant is also willing to pay a sum of Rs.1.80 lakhs as demanded by the Respondent FI, within a period of 10 days from today and therefore, the Respondent FI has no objection in giving re-possession of the portion of property, which is required for their business activities and accordingly, a suitable order may be passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.”
On the basis of this recording, the impugned order was passed. Now, Learned Counsel for Appellant takes contradictory stand that there was no such ‘no objection’ given or consent for handing over possession. This Tribunal finds merits in the submission of Learned Counsel for Respondents that, if really, no such submission was made by Counsel for Appellant before the Tribunal, as recorded by Learned Presiding Officer, immediately on coming to know about this order, Appellant should have filed an Application to recall the order or filed an objection Memo, to inform the Learned Presiding Officer that the submissions were wrongly recorded, that is, when there was no submission that ‘no objection’ was given for handing over possession, the Tribunal wrongly recorded that the Counsel for Appellant gave no objection for handing over possession of portion of property. That was not done immediately. Even this Appeal is filed only after the delay of 77 days.
Therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that only the DRT is the right forum to decide with regard to the submissions made in this Appeal.
In this view of the matter, this Tribunal disposes of this Appeal giving direction the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore, to dispose of the main SA, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months. Both the parties shall bear their own costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.