Arun Tandon, J.@mdashThe counsel for the petitioners at the outset contended that petitioners are challenging the ex parte decree dated 09.09.2002 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Transfer Case No. 106 of 2000 as well as the order, which has been passed by the Recovery Officer on 21st July, 2010.
2. I am of the considered opinion that the first prayer made by the petitioners is an abuse of process of the Court. From the records of the present writ petition it is clear that after the judgment dated 09.09.2002 was passed in Transfer Application No. 106 of 2000. The judgment debtor made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, which was numbered as Application No. 216 of 2002. This application was dismissed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 14.01.2003. Recovery proceedings were initiated in terms of the aforesaid judgment and decree. The property in dispute was attached and was actually sold. At that stage the petitioners (predecessor in interest) filed Writ Petition No. 12655 of 2004 challenging the order dated 14.09.2002, whereby the Transfer Application was directed to proceed ex parte. The writ petition is stated to have been decided under the judgment and order dated 21.02.2004. Copy of the order dated 21.02.2004 has not been brought on record for the reasons best known to the petitioners.
3. On a pointed query of the Court, the counsel for the petitioner replied that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
4. With the dismissal of the writ petition with no liberty to file afresh, the ex parte decree became final and there can be no further challenge to the judgment dated 09.09.2002 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which according to the petitioners was ex parte.
5. What is worst is that the petitioners thereafter approached the District Consumer Forum by means of Complaint No. 88 of 2008. What has happened to the same is not known. In the meantime, in pursuance to the sale proclamation, and proceedings thereunder in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, D.R.C. Case No. 302 of 2002 was registered. The petitioners, therefore, approached this Court again by means of Writ Petition No. 43603 of 2005, which was decided under order dated 10th June, 2005 requiring the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority u/s 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 43 of 1995.
6. Petitioners accordingly filed Appeal No. 5 of 2005, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2007. The petitioners thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 37898 of 2007, which was again disposed of providing that the petitioners may avail the remedy of Appeal u/s 20 of Act No. 43 of 1995.
7. The petitioners are stated to have preferred an appeal accordingly, which was dismissed in limine on 06th September, 2007. Reference- paragraph 24 of the writ petition. The petitioners thereafter filed fourth writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 47096 of 2007. The Writ Court on 20.05.2010 issued following directions:
Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of the case at this juncture and considering the earnest endeavour on the part of the petitioners to deposit the requisite amount, the order dated 6.9.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Debt Recovery Tribunal with a direction to the petitioners to deposit the amount as required under Rule 60 of the Income Tax Rules within a period o six weeks from today. The objections of the petitioners subject to the aforesaid observations shall be considered and disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. The amount already deposited by the petitioners with the Bank for the purposes of recovery proceedings shall also be taken into consideration for the purpose of deposit.
8. From the order of the High Court it is apparently clear that the petitioner was only permitted to deposit the requisite amount, as required under Rule 60 of the Income Tax Rules within a period of six weeks from the date of order and their objections were directed to be considered and disposed of by Debt Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner with the bank, for the purpose of recovery, was directed to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deposit.
9. On an application made by the petitioners offering to deposit the amount in terms of Section 60 of the Income Tax Act, a statement has been submitted by the bank for establishing that the total outstanding dues are Rs. 78,86,608/ -, which the petitioners must deposit as per the undertaking given by them before the High Court. To the same effect is the order of the Tribunal dated 21.07.2010. This has led to the filing of the present writ petition.
10. I am of the considered opinion that the challenge to the ex parte decree is totally misconceived, as not only the appeal filed against the same stands dismissed, the writ petition filed against the same has also got dismissed as withdrawn. The matter in that regard has come to an end long back. The petitioners cannot be permitted to prolong the proceedings by making repeated applications under various Sections of the Act. Once the order has become final, all consequential action has to be taken accordingly. Even otherwise the petitioners themselves had offered to deposit the entire amount in terms of Section 60 of the Income Tax Act which has necessarily to be done in terms of the judgment and decree, which was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in T.A. Case No. 106 of 2000. The petitioners cannot be permitted to take a u-turn and against question the ex parte decree.
11. This Court holds that this writ petition, so far as it challenges the ex parte decree dated 09.09.2002, is an abuse of process of the Court. It has therefore to be dismissed with imposition of exceptional cost.
12. Against the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 21.07.2010, asking the petitioners to comply with the order passed by the High Court dated 20.05.2010, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners have themselves offered to deposit the entire amount u/s 60 of the Income Tax Act, which was considered and granted by this Court. The petitioners must do so accordingly.
13. At this stage counsel for the petitioners prays that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn.
14. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
