DBSAW NO.1084/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1084/2008. Sri Chand Gupta Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Ors. Date of Judgment :: July 18, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. R.P. Garg for the appellant. *** BY THE COURT:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5/5/2008 whereby the writ petition of the appellant filed against the order dated 11/9/2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and the order dated 18/5/2004 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur dismissing his application for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28/8/2003, has been dismissed. 2) The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the Tribunals as also the learned Single Judge, have failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had already resigned from the post of Director of the Company w.e.f. 27/1/1989. It was argued that the Original Application decided by the DBSAW NO.1084/08. 2 Tribunal was in fact a suit for recovery filed by respondent no.3-State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur. Though the same was decreed by the court on 28/8/2003; but the appellant, for the first time, came to know about the decree on 16/9/2003. Upon making enquiries, he came to know that he was impleaded as one of the defendants therein and vakalatnama containing his signature was filed in the proceedings whereas he never signed any such vakalatnama in favour of advocate Mr. J.L. Grover. The appellant, thereafter, made an application for recalling of the judgment dated 22/8/2003 alleging fraud. The same however was dismissed on 18/5/2004 by the Tribunal. Thereafter, he filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which too was dismissed vide order dated 11/9/2007. 3) Shri R.P. Garg, the learned counsel argued that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal could not dismiss the application of the appellant without making a proper enquiry as to the genuineness of his signatures on the vakalatnama and written-statement only on the ground that the appellant did not proceed against the concerned advocate either before the Bar Council or otherwise. It was argued that it was because of fraud played by the other Directors of the Company who forged the signatures of the appellant that liability is sought to be fastened on him. The Tribunal was duty obliged to compare the signatures of the appellant with his genuine signatures. DBSAW NO.1084/08. 3 4) The learned counsel citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (dead), AIR 1994 SC 853, argued that the decree, virtually, was passed against the appellant behind his back by exercising fraud and advocate Shri J.L. Grover was shown to have represented the appellant though he had no authority to do so. 5) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the orders impugned passed by both the Tribunals as also by the learned Single Judge, we find that the leaned Tribunals have examined the matter thoroughly and have given cogent and valid reasons for not believing the version of the appellant. As would be evident from the averments made in paras no.5 to 7 of its order, the learned Appellate Tribunal has also observed that the appellant in making application for recalling / reviewing the judgment and decree has rather used precautionary language in the application virtually giving clean chit to Shri J.L. Grover, Advocate. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the appellant did not make any allegation against advocate Shri J.L. Grover, but his stand was that there was every likelihood that someone might have given him the vakalatnama with his forged signature and that some other interested defendants in order to damage his interest collusively played fraud and made his forged power of attorney and also submitted his written-statement alongwith DBSAW NO.1084/08. 4 affidavit with his forged signature. 6) The version of the appellant, in our view, hardly inspires any confidence especially when it is not backed by any affirmative action taken by the appellant against the lawyer or his clerk or any other defendant either before the Bar Council or before the police. This clearly is in attempt to frustrate an otherwise concluded proceeding of recovery claim of the Bank. The orders of the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal do not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Learned Single Judge, in our view, was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. Skant/-