THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3616 of 2009 Date:21.08.2009 Between: M/s. Sree Lakshmi Metal Crushers. ..Petitioner and Central Bank of India. ..Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3616 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against order dated 26.06.2008 in M.A.No.9 of 2008 in O.A.No. 98 of 2005 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The respondent bank is the applicant, who filed the O.A. seeking issuance of recovery certificate before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, against M/s. Sree Lakshmi Metal Crushers, the petitioner herein/first defendant, and others. On 03.12.2007, the Tribunal passed ex parte orders in the O.A. issuing recovery certificate. Then the petitioner/first defendant firm, represented by Vangala Lakshminarayana Gupta, being the managing partner of the firm, filed M.A.No.9 of 2008 seeking to set aside the ex parte order. The Tribunal considered the matter at length and holding that Vangala Lakshminarayana Gupta cannot represent the matter on behalf of the petitioner/first defendant firm, since he was not a party to the O.A. or O.S.No.288 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Vijayawada, dismissed the M.A. The case of the petitioner firm, as represented by Vangala Lakshminarayana Gupta before the Tribunal, as regards the M.A., was that due to inadvertence, he noted the adjournment as 20.12.2007 instead of 21.11.2007 and therefore, he was absent on 21.11.2007 and the matter was posted for evidence to 26.11.2007, and on 03.12.2007, the Tribunal passed ex parte order of dismissal in the O.A. Therefore, ex parte order dated 03.12.2007 was sought to be set aside. The respondent bank, opposing the M.A., filed counter before the Tribunal stating that the cause title in the M.A. was not correct since it was not in accordance with the O.A.; that they filed O.S.No.94 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvidu, against certain people, which was later on transferred to the Sub Court, Vijayawada, and the same was re-numbered as O.S.No.288 of 1996; and that preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 11.04.2005 granting six months time for redemption, and hence, they filed the O.A. for issuance of recovery certificate. It is, however, stated that I.A.No.354 of 2004 in O.S.No.288 of 1996 filed by certain people, including Vangala Lakshminarayana Gupta, seeking to implead them as party defendants in the suit was dismissed on 14.03.2005 by the Court below stating that they are not proper parties to the suit. It is also stated that while one Velagapudi Mallikharjuna Rao, who is second defendant in the O.A. filed vakalat on behalf of the petitioner/first defendant firm, the Tribunal passed ex parte orders against the petitioner/first defendant firm, and therefore, Vangala Lakshminarayana Gupta representing the petitioner/first defendant firm has no locus standi to file the M.A. and that in fact the recovery certificate passed by the Tribunal dated 03.12.2007 has become final. Therefore, the respondent bank sought for dismissal of the M.A. The Tribunal, having considered the material available on record at length, and having observed that though ex parte orders were passed on 03.12.2007 in the O.A., the petitioner filed the M.A. on 28.12.2007, but not immediately and that though the petitioner contended that he noted the adjournment wrongly, there is no proof in that regard, dismissed the M.A. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal while dismissing the M.A. does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 21st August, 2009 GHN