THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 20928 of 2005 Between: Bank of India, rep. By its Constituted Attorney, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, 4th Floor, Indian Bank Circle Office, 55, Ethraj Salai, Chennai-600 008, and others. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S. Surya Prakasa Rao Counsel for Respondents: Sri S. Lakshma Reddy The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed questioning the common order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dated 28.06.2005 in M.A.Nos.35 of 2005 and 45 of 2005 in O.A.No.1097 of 1997 reversing the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 27.01.2005 dismissing M.A.No.105 of 2002 and for quashing the same as illegal and not valid. It is stated that the petitioner-Bank provided cash credit facility, bills purchase facility and bank guarantee facility to the fourth respondent-Company, namely, M/s. Moving Media Pvt. Ltd, for which the third respondent along with two others are the guarantors. The fourth respondent-Company committed default in repayment of amounts due under the three accounts. The petitioner-Bank filed O.S.No.281 of 1992 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 12.02.1992 for recovery of Rs.87,41,421.81 ps. The learned V Additional Judge passed preliminary decree for mortgage on 30.08.1993 and granted redemption time to the defendants for payment of decretal amounts till 30.12.1993. When the defendants failed to pay the decretal amount within the period of redemption, the petitioner-Bank filed I.A.No.177 of 1994 for passing of final decree for sale of mortgaged properties. Even in the said I.A. the defendants received the notices but failed to file written statements and the case was adjourned at their instance from time to time. Subsequently, after constitution of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Bangalore, the suit was transferred to DRT, Bangalore, and the same was renumbered as O.A.No.1097 of 1997 and notices were issued to the defendants. The defendants received the notices but remained absent. Hence the DRT, Bangalore set them ex parte on 4.09.1997 and after examining the record, directed on 24.12.1997 for issuance of recovery certificate on the basis of the Civil Court Decree. The Recovery Officer, DRT Hyderabad, had taken up the matter for recovery certificate and numbered the proceedings as R.P.No.139 of 2002 and issued notices to the defendants and the same have been served on them. At that stage the third respondent filed M.A.No.105 of 2002 to set aside the decree of the Civil Court dated 30.08.1993 and M.A.No.106 of 2002 to set aside the recovery certificate passed by DRT, Bangalore on 24.12.1997. They filed M.A.No.107 of 2002 for stay of all further proceedings in R.P.No.139 of 2002. When the counsel for the petitioner-Bank raised objection, the third respondent filed M.A.No.132 of 2002 to condone the delay in filing M.A.Nos.105 and 106 of 2002. The DRT Hyderabad condoned the delay on 20.08.2003, but however, dismissed M.A.Nos.105 and 106 of 2002 on 27.01.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent filed M.A.Nos.35 and 45 of 2005 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, and the same were allowed on 28.06.2005 reversing the orders of DRT, Hyderabad relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.391 of 1980. Hence this writ petition. Admittedly, the impugned order under challenge is with regard to allowing of M.A.Nos.35 and 45 of 2005 wherein the learned Tribunal held that the reasons set forth to condone the delay would hold good to set aside the ex parte order/decree/judgment. It is so unfortunate that the DRT, Hyderabad having condoned the delay had dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte decree, and therefore, the appellant/third respondent herein was driven to the necessity of filing the above appeals. In order to show the bona fides, the Tribunal also directed the appellant/third respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on or before 27.06.2005 and accordingly he had reported compliance of the said order. Holding so, the DRAT, Chennai allowed the applications. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellate authority has examined the matters in right perspective and set aside the order dated 27.01.2005 passed by the DRT, Hyderabad in M.A.Nos.105 and 106 of 2002. We do not find any jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, as the matter is pending for a long time, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably, before the end of February 2010. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) ___________________________ (NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO.J) 24th August, 2009 Js.