Harish Gupta And Ors. vs Indian Overseas Bank

Ranjit Singh, J

Prayer by the appellants to set aside the order denying permission to the appellants to file written statement and lead evidence in defence stands rejected. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants have filed the present two appeals. The reason advanced by the appellants to seek setting aside of the order was that there was a fire in the factory on 23rd February, 2013 and the appellants suffered major losses. For this purpose, they remained busy in taking remedial measures and, so, they were unable to contact their Counsel for a long time. The appellants would claim that they were not aware of the order dated 10th May, 2012 affording opportunity of one week to file written statement, which was granted on the prayer made by the Counsel for the appellants. The Counsel had also approached for filing evidence by way of affidavit within this time.

The present applications for setting aside the order dated 10th May, 2012 were filed by the appellant in January, 2014. As per the appellants, when they contacted their Counsel in January, 2014, they learnt about the order dated 10th May, 2012 and accordingly the present applications were filed. The Tribunal below has rejected the prayer made in this application by noticing that various opportunities were afforded to the appellants to complete the pleadings on 3rd August, 2012, 14th September, 2012, 12th October, 2012 and 23rd November, 2012. When the appellants failed to file written statement, the case was listed on 21st December, 2012 and was adjourned for final arguments on 15th March, 2013. The Tribunal has thus observed that the clock cannot turn back to grant this permission when the Bank has filed its evidence and the case is ripe for arguments.

The reasons given by the Tribunal below while declining the prayer do not suffer from any infirmity to call for any interference by this Tribunal. The Counsel for the appellants, however, points out that this application filed in January 2014 has now been decided after 13 months which time was sufficient to consider and decide the OA by taking the written statement on record which was filed along with the application. The Counsel submits that the appellants are prepared to be put to reasonable terms to compensate the respondent.

The appellants are making this issue to look simple whereas they were afforded more than requisite opportunity. Allowing them to file written statement would lead to turn the clock backward which would delay the recovery. At the same time, there may be need to see that the appellants do not suffer any serious prejudice in putting up their case.

The Counsel submits that the appellants may be permitted to file at least an affidavit to raise their legal pleas to counter the stand of the Bank. Since the Tribunals under the RDDBFI Act are not bound by the procedure laid down in CPC and can adopt their own procedure in tune with principles of natural justice, this plea may call for consideration.

The appellant may move an appropriate application before the Tribunal below in this regard to seek permission to file its plea which may not be in the shape of written statement and may not be taken as such. It may be in the shape of written submission in response to the stand of the Bank. It is left open to the Tribunal to consider such application if filed and pass any appropriate order. The Tribunal may also consider for imposing costs if any such plea is allowed. Since I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, it is not considered necessary to put the respondents to notice while disposing of the appeals.

Subject to above observations, the appeal is dismissed.