Dinesh Rao vs The Senior Branch Manager, The Syndicate Bank, Kundara Branch, Kollam District Pin - 691501 and The Secretary, The Kerala Samstana Vyapari Vyavasaya Samithi Iravipuram Area Commiitee, Umayanellur P.O. Kollam District, Pin - 691589

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J

The issue involved in both these cases is rather similar and hence both the cases are considered together and disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners have availed loans from the respondent Bank, on the strength of security interest created over the properties in question. Because of the default committed by the petitioners, the Bank proceeded with necessary steps and filed O.A. Nos. 379/2009 and 381/2009 respectively before the DRT, Ernakulam. The petitioners could not appear before the Tribunal on the specified date and accordingly, the Tribunal passed an ex- parte decree in the concerned O.As. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing applications to set aside the ex-parte decrees, also with petitions to condone the delay in filing the same. After considering the I.As. the Tribunal condoned the delay, subject to the condition that the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in both the cases, which, according to the petitioners is rather onerous, and hence under challenge.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing O.P. (DRT). Nos. 384 & 388/2012, which were disposed of by Ext. P2 common judgment dated 02.02.2012, whereby the Tribunal was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in the I.As. It was pursuant to the said direction, that the matter was considered and the Tribunal and passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the direction given by the Tribunal is to an unconscionable extent, which hence is sought to be intercepted.

The Learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on instruction, submits that the Tribunal has infact taken a lenient view, particularly in the light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, , whereby the delay was condoned, however imposing a condition to the requisite extent. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that earlier ex-parte verdict was passed by the Tribunal nearly two years after filing the OA and it was about two years thereafter, that the petitioners sought to approach the Tribunal by filing petitions to set aside the ex-parte verdict and to condone the delay in filing the applications in this regard. It was in the said circumstance, that the Tribunal found it fit and proper, to impose a rider, by directing the petitioners to satisfy a portion of the liability, which is very much in order and is not liable to be assailable under any circumstance. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the challenge raised against Exhibit P3 is not liable to be entertained. However, taking note of the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners might be permitted to comply with the condition imposed by the Tribunal by granting a further period of two weeks, it is made clear that the petitioners will stand permitted to effect the deposit in compliance with the direction given by the Tribunal vide Exhibit P3, if the said deposit is made within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Both the Original Petitions are disposed of accordingly.