IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22932 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 22, 2010. Shri Parmod Kumar Mittal and others .....Petitioners versus State Bank of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.A.L.Jaiswal, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.22932 and 22930 of 2010 as the issues involved in both the cases are quite common. Taking the facts from Civil Writ Petition No.22932 of 2010, suffice it to mention that the petitioners are the legal heirs of late B.P.Gupta, who is said to have passed away in the year 1990. It is alleged that though a Division Bench of this Court while deciding the Company Appeal Nos.8 & 10 of 1996 on 4.9.1991, expressly set-aside the orders passed by the Company Court dated 1.11.1989 (Annexure P-4) whereby the liability to the extent of Rs.4,36,082.95 was fastened upon B.P.Gupta, nevertheless, the respondent-bank has obtained an ex-parte order dated 21.5.2008 and the recovery certificate dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure P-10) C.W.P.No .22932 of 2010 2 from the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh by misleading and giving wrong addresses of the petitioners and is now taking active steps to recover the disputed amount. It is conceded on behalf of the petitioners that they have moved no application so far before the Tribunal to recall the aforesaid order dated 21.5.2008, however, learned counsel for the petitioners points out that as soon as the petitioners came to know about the passing of the ex-parte order, they submitted their objections before the Recovery Officer which are still pending consideration. It is stated that instead of deciding the objections, the Recovery Officer has taken steps to auction the petitioners' properties for which sale notices have been issued. It is also urged that the respondent-bank has played fraud with the Tribunal as well as with this Court by concealing the Division Bench orders passed in Civil Appeal Nos.8 & 10 of 1996 decided on 4.9.1991 vide which B.P.Gupta stood absolved from any liability. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered view that the above stated contention, namely, that B.P..Gupta stood absolved of the liability by the Division Bench of this Court in the Company Appeals, ought to have been raised by the petitioners before the Tribunal. It appears that the petitioners are pursuing wrong remedies as the Recovery Officer is concededly not competent to go behind the decree already passed by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the Tribunal. It is directed that in case the petitioners approach the C.W.P.No .22932 of 2010 3 Tribunal within a period of one week with an explanation for the delay, caused even after acquiring the knowledge of the ex-parte orders, their application shall be considered sympathetically and in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. December 22, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE