IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23907 of 2008 Between: 1. M/s. Standard Medical & Pharmaceuticals Limited, having its registered Office at 6-3-652, Kautilya, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 185, represented by its Managing Director. 2. A. Raghava Reddy, S/o. A. Sankara Reddy, R/o. H.No. 8-2-277/A/1, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 3. A.R. Viswanath, S/o. A. Sreerami Reddy, R/o. H.No. 8-3-960/2, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners And 1. State Bank of Mysore, Secunderabad Branch, H.No. 1-7-265-274, S.D. Road, Secunderabad, represented by its Chief Manager. ...Respondent Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or a direction more particularly a Writ of Ceritiorari setting aside the Docket Order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Hyderabad dated 13-06-2008 passed in M.A. No 61 of 2007 in O.A. No. 1430 of 1999 by which I.A. No.957 of 2007 and also M.A. No. 61 of 2007 were dismissed and consequently remit the matter to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Hyderabad to dispose of the I.A. No.957 of 2007 and M.A. No.61 of 2007. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.P. Acharya Counsel for the respondent : None The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Anil R. Dave, C.J.) This petition was notified for hearing on 4-10-2008. Notice had been issued to the respondent. On 13-11-2008, though notice of this court had been served upon the respondent, nobody had appeared for the respondent, and, therefore, in the interest of justice, hearing had been adjourned again to 20-11-2008. On 20-11-2008 also, nobody had appeared for the respondent, and, therefore, hearing had been adjourned to today. Even today, nobody has appeared for the respondent, but this petition is heard on merits as sufficient opportunities have already been given to the respondent. The short point which is involved in the petition is with regard to legality of orders passed in I.A.No.957 of 2007 and M.A.No.61 of 2007 in O.A.No.1430 of 1999 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. O.A.No.1430 of 1999 had been filed by the respondent-bank, which had been allowed. An application for review, being M.A.No.61 of 2007, was filed by the present petitioners for review of order passed in O.A.No.1430 of 1999, but as delay had been caused in filing the said review application, application for condonation of delay, being I.A.No.957 of 2007 had been filed in M.A.No.61 of 2007. On 13-06-2008, when I.A.No.957 of 2007, an application for condonation of delay caused in filing the review application had been called out for hearing, learned Advocate, Sri T.P. Acharya, who was to appear in the matter was not present, but his junior, learned Advocate, Sri G. Sivaramakrishna Reddy was present in the Tribunal and he had made a request to the Tribunal to pass-over hearing of the application so as to enable learned Advocate, Sri T.P. Acharya, to appear in the matter after a short period. The Tribunal did not keep it back, but called upon the junior Advocate to argue the matter. The junior Advocate, namely, Sri G. Sivaramakrishna Reddy, was not aware about the facts of the case, and, therefore, he was unable to make any submission before the Tribunal and, in the circumstances, the Tribunal was pleased to pass an order rejecting the delay condonation application as well as the review application, i.e. I.A.No.957 of 2007 and M.A.No.61 of 2007 respectively. Being aggrieved by rejection of the afore-stated applications, this petition has been filed. As stated hereinabove, none has appeared for the respondent- bank though we have waited on several occasions, and, in the circumstances, the petition is heard on merits. In our opinion, a case has been made out by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners for setting aside the impugned order dated 13-06-2008. In our opinion, the Tribunal ought to have kept back hearing of the application, particularly in view of the fact that a junior Advocate had made a request to the Tribunal. We have also gone through the reasons stated in the affidavit which had been filed in I.A.No.957 of 2007. In our opinion, the Tribunal ought to have gone through the said reasons, but without considering the said reasons, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order and that was not proper. For the afore-stated reasons, in the interest of justice, we allow the petition by quashing and setting aside the orders passed in I.A.No.957 of 2007 and M.A.No.61 of 2007 so as to enable the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders after hearing the concerned parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. 8th December, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. To 1. The Chief Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Secunderabad Branch, H.No. 1-7-265-274, S.D. Road, Secunderabad. 2. Two CD copies. ARS