Hom Electricals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Vijaya Bank

Ranjit Singh, J

On 3rd February, 2014, Tribunal below had closed the right of the appellants to file written statement in the OA filed by the Bank The appellants accordingly filed an application seeking setting aside of the order dated 3rd February, 2014. The Tribunal below has dismissed this application on September 12, 2014. The present appeals are directed against this order passed by the Tribunal on 12th September, 2014. These appeals are filed with delay of 37 days Applications (IAs No. 256 of 2015 and No. 257 of 2015) are also filed seeking condonation of this delay. It is pleaded that the copy of the order dated 12th September, 2014 was made available only on 24th September, 2014. These appeals could be filed by 8th November, 2014 but have been filed on 3rd December, 2014 and hence with a delay in filling the appeals.

The appellants have made reference to an order dated on 29th October, 2014 passed by this Tribunal allowing another co-defendant to file written statement by imposing costs of Rs. 50,000/-. Plea accordingly is that one opportunity be afforded to the appellants as well since the OA would stand open for consideration due to opportunity afforded to co-defendant. It is also pleaded that the appellants were not aware that they were required to file two separate appeals to assail the order dated 12th September, 2014

The appellant (co-defendant) never apprised this Tribunal when order on 29th October, 2014 was passed that the OA itself had been allowed on 12th September, 2014. The order dated 29th October, 2014, thus was passed thinking that the OA was yet to be decided. The position would have been different, if this Tribunal had been made aware that the OA stood decided. Once the OA had been decided the only appropriate course would have been to file appeal and take this as one of the grounds. Unless the final order in the OA is challenged and interfered on this ground it cannot be legally re-opened. This may be a case of error apparent on the face of record. Had this fact been brought to the notice of this Tribunal while passing the order dated 29th October, 2014 then such an order was open to be made by this Tribunal only when the final order in the OA was challenged.

The Counsel for the appellants states that an application has now been filed by the said appellant Mr. O.P. Chauhan, in whose favour the order dated 29th October, 2014 was passed, to seek implementation of this order. When once OA has been decided, order dated 29th October, 2014 would be rendered redundant. The appellants will have to raise all these pleas if they decide to file any appeal against the final order passed in the OA. Since the order dated 29th October, 2014 was passed in ignorance of the fact that the OA itself had been decided obviously the order requiring consideration of the written statement now would not arise.

The present appeals are not maintainable more so when the appellants have already filed appeal against the final order passed in the OA. The right course for the appellants is to take all these pleas in the appeal which they have filed to challenge the final order passed in the OA. The present appeals are not maintainable since the OA itself has been decided. The appeals are accordingly dismissed being not maintainable with a liberty to the appellants to take all these pleas/grounds in the appeal filed against the final order passed in the OA.

A copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal below for information and compliance.