M.A. No. 8 of 2002. Case: Smt. Bimla Devi Vs Allahabad Bank and Ors.. Ranchi Debt Recovery Tribunals
| Case Number | M.A. No. 8 of 2002 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K.K. Sahay, Adv. and For Respondents: A.K. Pathak, Adv. for the Respondent No. 1 and A.N. Gupta, Adv. for the Respondent No. 5-BSFC |
| Judges | S.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order, Rule 17; Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 22(2); Debt Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1993 - Rule 11 |
| Citation | I (2004) BC 125 |
| Judgement Date | June 17, 2003 |
| Court | Ranchi Debt Recovery Tribunals |
Order:
S.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer
-
This pertains to an Application filed by Smt. Bimla Devi under Section 22(2)(g) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 24.5.2000 passed in O.A. No. 191/1998.
-
It is the case of the applicant that at no stage any notice/summon was ever served on her in O.A. No. 191/1998 which prevented the Applicant to appear and contest the said original application. It is also her contention that she is an illiterate simple house-wife and lives in Parda and has not made any transaction with anybody. She has prayed to give her an opportunity to contest the original application.
-
Defendant No. 1, the Decree Holder Bank had contested the M.A. by filing rejoinder dated 13.11.2002. In addition to objection on ground of limitation, the Bank has objected that Ghuran Mishra, f/o the Applicant had no authority to file the Application. With regard to the merit of the case it has been contended by the Decree Holder Bank that once there has been a substituted service through publication in Newspaper, there is deemed service in law and applicant cannot take plea that they were unaware of the original proceedings in question. In connection of the petitioner's contention that applicant is an illiterate Pardanasin lady, it has been vehemently controverted that applicant had visited the Bank on many occasions and had executed various documents as follows amongst others:
-
Agreement to mortgage dated 28.10.1991--Annexure III of O.A.
-
Supplementary agreement to mortgage dated 22.9.1992--Annexure VI of O.A.
-
Letter of guarantee dated 27.5.1995--Annexure XIV/A of O.A.
The Decree Holder Bank has also furnished a copy of the judgment dated 8.2.2002 in O.A. 195/2000 which inter alia reveals that the present applicant was the Sole Proprietor of M/s. Bajrang Agri Co. and had taken loan of Rs. 15.5 lacs from Allahabad Bank, Tatisilwai Branch, Ranchi. In that case being O.A. No 195/2000 the applicant was the borrower and her husband was the guarantor and there was an ex parte decree against her on 8.2.2002 for payment of Rs. 34,47,868.17 paisa. Accordingly, Bank has stressed that the claim of the Applicant that she is a Pardanasin lady is false and baseless.
-
Heard the parties and perused the records.
-
In connection with the Bank's objection that the application is not maintainable as the same has been affirmed by the applicant's father and not by the applicant, the petitioner has relied on the case-law reported in AIR (30) 1943...
To continue reading
Request your trial