THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :26511 of 2009 DATED: 27-04-2010 Between: Mohd. Khaja. ..... PETITIONER AND The Prudential Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Rashtrapathi road, Secunderabad & 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: The Prudential Cooperative Urban Bank Limited-1st respondent herein filed O.P.No.904 of 2000 before the A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad against the 2nd respondent-principal borrower and the petitioner and the 3rd respondent-sureties, for recovery of a sum of about Rs.16,000/- with interest. Respondents in the O.P. were set ex parte and through its order, dated 28-07-2001, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. The salary of the petitioner was got attached in the year 2008. Thereupon, he filed an application with a request to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was delay in presenting the application, petitioner filed I.A.No.675 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal by order, dated 06-11-2009. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Petitioner urges that the O.P. filed by the 1st respondent was not maintainable at all and the only remedy for the 1st respondent was to file an application under Section 101 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act for issuance of recovery certificate. He contends that he did not receive notice in the O.P. at all and without verifying that fact, the Tribunal dismissed the I.A. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the record discloses that all the respondents in the O.P. were set ex parte, after they were served with a notice and that the delay involved is enormous. The circumstances under which the 1st respondent approached the Tribunal directly are not immediately before this Court. This Court in not inclined to express any opinion in this regard, at this stage. The averment of the petitioner that he did not receive any notice at all was not dealt with in proper perspective by the Tribunal. A technical approach was adopted and by making reference to record, it was proceeded as though the petitioner did not turn up even after receipt of notice. At any rate, the petitioner happens to be a surety. This Court is of the view that he deserves to be given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, Writ Petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the ex parte order, dated 28-07-2001 insofar as it is against the petitioner, is set aside. It shall be open to the petitioner to file a written statement within four weeks from today. The Tribunal shall dispose of the O.P. on merits, after giving opportunity to the parties concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 27th April, 2010. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one days. B/o Tsy