HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.1737 and 1738 of 2007 Dt.3.11.2010 C.R.P.No.1737 of 2007 Between: M/s.M.S.Motors & Tractors and another ..Petitioners And The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and others ..Respondents C.R.P.NO.1738 of 2007 Between: M/s.Bezawada Motor Stores and another ..Petitioners And The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.1737 and 1738 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. The petitioners and the respondent in the civil revision petitions are one and the same. These two civil revision petitions are filed against the orders dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in S.A.Nos.93 and 91 of 2004 respectively, holding that the petitioners are liable to pay the deficit court fee and the bank shall recover the deficit the court fee from the sale proceeds of the secured assets. As against the action for recovery of secured debt, the petitioner filed the aforesaid securitization applications in the year 2004 and it appears that some conditional orders have been obtained and ultimately as the applicant was absent and there was no representation, the securitization applications are dismissed on the ground that the securitization application is filed without paying advalorem application fee and the petitioners are liable to pay the deficit court fee and bank also directed to recover the same. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that when the securitization applications are filed in 2004, the application fee that was in vogue to be paid was Rs.250/- and there are no rules with regard to payment of fee under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and for the first time Rules 12 and 13 are inserted by notification of the Central Government with effect from 2.2.2007 alone. It is stated that when the said securitization applications are dismissed, there is no legal liability to pay advalorem court fee. Admittedly, the said orders are passed in the absence of the applicant and without assigning any particular reasons with regard to the relevant rules or the notification requiring the payment of advalorem court fee. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, to decide afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. Accordingly, the orders impugned are set aside and civil revision petitions are allowed and the matters are remitted back to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, for disposal afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 3.11.2010 kpr