THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 306 of 2010. ORDER: Heard Sri. A.Suryanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioners a n d Smt.Dyumani, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent bank. Respondents 2 to 4 are not necessary parties to the revision. The petitioners are defendants 1 to 3 in O.A.No. 28 of 2006 filed by the 1st respondent bank herein seeking recovery of Rs. 6,00,000/- claimed to have been borrowed by the revision petitioners in 1993 from the bank for which defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 mortgaged their properties as a collateral security. The revision petitioners filed an interlocutory application M.A.No. 24 of 2009 seeking condonation of delay of 338 days in filing an application to set aside the e x parte decree dt. 24.4.2008. This application was rejected by the Tribunal. It was clearly and categorically pleaded before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam on behalf of the revision petitioners that no notices of O.A.No. 28 of 2006 were served on them and only recently they learnt that the 4th defendant who is neither a borrower nor guarantor had entered appearance through a Counsel and did not evince any interest in prosecution of O.A.No. 28 of 2006 and had allowed an ex parte decree to be passed on 24.4.2008. Even after passing of an ex parte decree, the 4th defendant did not inform the petitioners about the same. It was also pleaded in the accompanying affidavit that one of the guarantors Sri. Ramakrishna Raju died in 1994 but the 1st respondent bank nevertheless filed O.A.No. 28 of 2006 impleading him as the 5th defendant and in the circumstances the ex parte decree is a nullity. While rejecting the application M.A.No. 24 of 2009, the Tribunal failed to record a finding whether summons in O.A.No. 28 of 2006 were served on the petitioners (defendants 1 to 3 in the O.A.). In the circumstances above, Smt.Dyumani, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent bank states that since the bank is aggrieved by the interminable protraction of O.A.No. 28 of 2006, in the interest of justice and speedy disposal of the O.A., this Court may allow M.A.No. 24 of 2009 by condoning the delay of 338 days in filing an application to set aside the e x parte decree dt. 24.4.2008 and permit the petitioners to contest O.A. No. 28 of 2006 on merits and be pleased to direct the learned D.R.T., Visakhapatnam to dispose of the O.A. expeditiously. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri.A.Suryanarayana and Smt.Dyumani, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, I consider it just and reasonable to allow the revision. The order dt. 17.11.2008 passed by the D.R.T. Visakhapatnam in M.A.No. 24 of 2008 is set aside. M.A.No. 24 of 2008 seeking condoning the delay of 338 days in filing an application for setting aside the ex parte decree dt. 24.4.2008 is ordered. The learned D.R.T. Visakhapatnam is requested to dispose of the O.A.No. 28 of 2006 expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned D.R.T. shall proceed to fix a rigid and inflexible time frame for subsequent steps for trial of O.A.No. 28 of 2006 and for examination of witnesses and other steps. In the circumstances, no further notices in O.A.No. 28 of 2006 need be sent to the revision petitioners. Sri.A.Suryanaryana, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners undertakes to instruct the petitioners to respond to the substantive proceedings in O.A.No. 28 of 2006 before the D.R.T. Visakhapatnam. The revision petition is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 09.12.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 306 of 2010. ORDER: DT. 09.12.2011.