WP(C) 284/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Ms P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. By this writ petition the petitioner is assailing the order passed by th e Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati dated 01.12.2010 wherein and whereunder the l earned Tribunal had dismissed the appeal, i.e. Misc. Application No.37 of 2010 o n default. It is stated that the petitioner filed Misc. Appln No.44/2010 for restor ation of MA No.37 of 2010 by setting aside the order dated 01.12.2010 for dismis sing the appeal on default. In the writ petition, it is the submission of Ms P. Chakraborty basing o n the specially pleaded case of the petitioner that the learned Tribunal is not taking up the said application for restoration of the petition, but the said app lication for restoration is still with the Registrar of the Tribunal. It is not clear as to why the learned Tribunal is not taking up the said application for r estoration of the appeal. The Tribunal is duty bound to take up the said applica tion for hearing and deciding the same on merit. Ms Chakraborty further contends that by delaying the hearing of the said application for restoration, undue advantage is made available to the Bank. As the said appeal was dismissed for default, the Bank is likely to take up drastic action against the petitioner. In the above factual background, this writ petition is disposed by direc ting the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati to take up the said applicatio n for restoration forthwith for decision on merit on receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petitioner is directed to furnish certified copy of this order t o the learned Tribunal for immediate steps. Till the final decision of the appea l, status quo as regards the mortgaged properties shall be maintained.