Ex parte order set-aside relief denied where parties had notice, participated earlier, and suppressed material facts.

An ex parte order before the Debt Recovery Tribunal was not liable to be set aside where the defendants had already participated in the civil suit, engaged counsel, filed a written statement, and thus had notice of the proceedings and sufficient opportunity to appear. Service by repeated summons at the same address and by newspaper publication supported the finding of adequate notice under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applied through Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Relief was also refused because the applicants suppressed the material fact of their prior participation and representation by counsel. The Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal, and High Court orders were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal was liable to be set aside on the ground of alleged non-service of summons and absence of opportunity to appear, and whether the application to set aside the ex parte order was defeated by suppression of material facts.

Analysis: The appellants had earlier appeared in the civil suit, engaged counsel, filed a written statement, and raised preliminary objections. After transfer of the matter to the Tribunal, summons were again attempted at the same address and were also published in newspapers having wide circulation. Under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, read with Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the relevant question is whether the defendant had notice of the proceedings and sufficient time to appear and answer the claim. The Court held that the appellants were aware of the litigation, had adequate opportunity, and could not rely on alleged irregularity in service. The Court further held that the application for setting aside the ex parte order was rightly rejected because the appellants suppressed the material fact that they had already participated in the civil suit and were represented by counsel.

Conclusion: The challenge to the ex parte order failed, and the orders of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal, and High Court were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applied through Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, an ex parte order cannot be set aside where the defendant had notice of the proceedings and sufficient time to appear, and an applicant who suppresses material facts is not entitled to discretionary relief.

---