IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ M.F.A. N0.9564 OF 2012 C/W M.F.A. NO.5401 OF 2012 M.F.A. NO.365 OF 2014 (SFC) IN M.F.A. NO.9564/2012 BETWEEN:
SMT S. NAGALAKSHMI W/O LATE K.N. MURALIDHARA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1196 8TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR II PHASE BANGALORE-85 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. NAGARAJA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION A BODY INCORPORATED UNDER THE STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ACT, 1951 (CENTRAL ACT NO.LXIII OF 1951) HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.1/1 THIMMAIAH ROAD, NEAR CANTONMENT RAILWAY STATION, BANGALORE-560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (RECOVERY) A.R. DEPARTMENT 2. M/S PRANAVA INSULATORS PVT LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS FACTORY AT NO.A-283 AND 284, II STAGE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BANGALORE-560 058 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3. SRI H.S. BALAKRISHAN S/O SRIKANTH GANAPATHI MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT NO.49 NIMISHAMBA, 22ND BLOCK 1ST MAIN, SRIRAMPURAM II STAGE, MYSORE-570 023 4. SRI R. MAHADEVA GOWDA S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.1296/11, JANANI 12TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 002 5. SRI H.H. MURALI S/O HANUMANTHASA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.85, MAMULPET BANGALORE-560002 6. SMT SHANTHA BHOOSHAN W/O H.S. NAGABHUSHAN MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.111, 7TH CROSS KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 7. SMT LEELA SHEKAR W/O H.S.C. SASTRY MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.46/12, SRINIDHI MOUNT JOY EXTENSION HANUMANTHANAGAR BANGALORE-560019 8. SMT M.K. RADHA W/O A.K. SUNDARESHAN MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.103, RADHIKA 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR WEST BANGALORE-560011 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUAMR, ADVOCATE FOR R5) ***** THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 32 (9) OF STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2011 PASSED IN MIS.NO.148/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 31(1)(aa) AND 32 OF STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT.
IN M.F.A. NO.5401 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
SHRI. H.H. MURALI S/O HANUMANTHASA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 85, MAMULPET BANGALORE – 560002 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION A BODY CORPORATED UNDER THE STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ACT, 1951 (CENTRAL ACT NO.LXIII OF 1951) HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.1/1 THIMMAIAH ROAD, NEAR CANTONMENT RAILWAY STATION, BANGALORE-560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (RECOVERY) A.R. DEPARTMENT 2. M/S PRANAVA INSULATORS PVT LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS FACTORY AT NO.A-283 AND 284, II STAGE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BANGALORE-560 058 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3. SRI H.S. BALAKRISHAN S/O SRIKANTH GANAPATHI MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT NO.49 NIMISHAMBA, 22ND BLOCK 1ST MAIN, SRIRAMPURAM II STAGE, MYSORE-570 023 4. SHRI. R. MAHADEVA GOWDA S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA MAJOR BY AGE, RESIDING AT NO.1296/11, JANANI 12TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 002 5. SMT SHANTHA BHOOSHAN W/O H.S. NAGABHUSHAN MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT NO.111, 7TH CROSS KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 6. SMT. LEELA SHEKAR W/O H.S.C. SASTRY MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT NO.46/12, SRINIDHI MOUNT JOY EXTENSION HANUMANTHANAGAR BANGALORE-560019 7. SMT M.K. RADHA W/O A.K. SUNDARESHAN MAJOR IN AGE RESIDING AT NO.103, RADHIKA 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR WEST BANGALORE-560011 8. SMT. S. NAGALAKSHMI W/O K.N. MURALIDHARA MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT GEETHA NILAYA K.R.ROAD, MANDYA-8 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUAMR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. JAYARAMA .V, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
SRI. K.S. NAGARAJA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R8) ***** THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 32 (9) OF STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2011 PASSED IN MIS.NO.148/2005 ON THE FILE OF XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 31(1)(aa) AND 32 OF STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, FOR RECOVERY OF A TOTAL SUM OF RS.2,92,84,553/- WITH COSTS AND INTEREST.
IN M.F.A. NO.365 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
M.K. RADHA W/O A.K.SUNDARESHAN MAJOR R/A NO.103, RADHIKA 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR WEST BANGALORE-560 011 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAYARAMA.V, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION NO.1/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD NEAR CANTONMENT RAILWAY STATION BANGALORE-560 052 2. H.S. BALAKRISHNA S/O SRIKANTH GANAPATHY MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.49, NIMISHAMBA 22ND BLOCK, 1ST MAIN SRIRAMPURAM, 2ND STAGE MYSORE-570 023 3. R. MAHADEVA GOWDA S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.1296/11, JANANI 12TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE-560 065 4. H.H.MURALI S/O HANUMANTHA SHA MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.85, MAMULPET BANGALORE 5. SMT. SHANTHABHOOSHAN W/O H.S.NAGABHOOSHAN MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.111, 7TH CROSS, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020 6. SMT. LEELA SHEKAR W/O H.S.C. SASTRY MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.46/12 SRINIDHI MOUNT JOY EXTENSION HANUMANTHA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 019 7. SMT. S.NAGALAKSHMI W/O K.N.MURALIDHARA MAJOR RESIDING AT GEETHA NILAYA K.R.ROAD, MANDYA 8. M/S PRANAVA INSULATORS PVT LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS FACTORY AT:
NO.A-283 & 284, 2ND STAGE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BANGALORE-560 058 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR). … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUAMR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. K.S. NAGARAJA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R7) ***** THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 32 (9) OF STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2011 PASSED IN MIS.NO.148/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 31(1)(aa) AND 32 OF STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T Though these appeals are listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is heard finally.
2. These appeals arise out of common order dated 24th November 2011 passed in Misc.No.148/2005 by XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City on a petition filed by the 1st respondent herein - Karnataka State Financial Corporation (hereinafter, referred to as ‘KSFC’ for the sake of convenience) under Sections 31(1)(aa) and 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Act’ for the sake of brevity) for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,92,84,553/- with costs and interest. As these appeals arise out of the same impugned order, they have been connected together and heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the trial Court.
4. The 1st respondent – KSFC has filed the petition under Sections 31(1)(aa) and 32 of the Act seeking recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,92,84,553/- with costs and interest. According to the KSFC, it had sanctioned various sums on different dates to the 1st respondent, which is a Private Corporation Limited by way of loan and respondent Nos.2 to 8 had executed deed of guarantee and hypothecation deed in favour of KSFC on various dates. According to KSFC, liability of the respondent Nos.2 to 8 is joint and several. That at the time of availment of the said loan, the respondents had agreed to repay the loan amount with interest as and when it fell due, as agreed by them and to pay the penal interest also. According to KSFC, after availment of the loan, respondent No.1 did not discharge its debts and hence on 10.8.2000, KSFC initiated recovery proceedings under Section 29 of the Act for attachment of the assets and properties of respondent No.1. Thereafter, several steps were taken to sell the primary assets of respondent- company in order to recover the outstanding debts. On 04.12.2000, KSFC issued notice to the 1st respondent directing to pay the entire dues but the 1st respondent did not discharge its debts. On 12.01.2004, another notice was issued to respondent Nos.2 to 8. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 issued a reply on 29.01.2004 and 24.01.2004 denying their liability to discharge the debts. Notice to other respondents was not served. According to KSFC, liability of the respondents are joint and several. In the circumstances, KSFC filed the petition seeking recovery of dues before the trial Court.
5. The trial court issued notices to the respondents on 05.03.2005. The trial Court recorded that respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 did not appear before the court and placed them ex-parte. Respondent No.4 appeared before the trial court through counsel and filed its statement of objections denying the averments made by KSFC by contending that the averments made in the petition are false, frivolous and vexatious and he denied the borrowing of the amounts from KSFC and sought for dismissal of the petition. He further contended that between the years 1981 to 1985, he was a minor and not a major and he had not entered into any contract with KSFC and he sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. The trial Court recorded the evidence in the matter. In support of KSFC, PW-1-Sri.Suresh was examined as PW-1 and he produced 32 documents, which were marked as Exhibits-P1 to P32. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.4 was examined as RW-1 and he produced two documents, which were marked as Exhibits-R1 to R2. On the basis of the evidence on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, the trial court formulated the following points for its consideration:
1. Whether the Petitioner Corporation proves that, on 29.4.1981 it has sanctioned loan of Rs.12,32,000/-, on 7.4.82 Rs.1,50,000/-, on 23.11.82 Rs.48,000/-, on 18.12.85 Rs.16,44,000/-, on 25.5.94 it has sanctioned 6,00,000/-, on 6.2.96 Rs.3,40,000/- and on 21.5.96 it has sanctioned Rs.48,54,000/- in favour of respondent No.1 Company as contended in the petition?
2. Whether the Petitioner Corporation proves that, at the time of availment of loan, the respondents No.2 to 8 stood as guarantors and executed deeds in favour of the Petitioner Corporation with respect to the sanctioned loan as contended in the petition?
3. Whether the Petitioner Corporation proves that the respondent have agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at the rate of 12.50% to 19% p.a. at quarterly rest with penal interest on the loans sanctioned on various days as contended in the petition?
4. Whether the Petitioner Corporation proves that, at the time of sanctioning the loan, the 4th respondent has executed deed of guarantee in favour of the Petitioner Corporation, so he is also jointly and severally liable to discharge the dues of Respondent No.1 company along with other respondents?
5. Whether the respondent No.4 proves that, he is not liable to pay the dues of respondent No.1 company along with other respondents for the reasons stated in his objection?
6. Whether the Petitioner Corporation proves that, after availment of the loan, the Respondents No.1 to 8 have failed to discharge their dues as agreed by them?
7. What order?”
7. The trial Court answered Point Nos.1 to 4 and 6 in the affirmative and Point No.5 in the negative and allowed the petition with costs and held that KSFC is entitled to recover its dues to the tune of Rs.2,92,84,553/- with costs and interest as sought for in the prayer column of the petition and that respondent Nos.2 to 8 are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues to the KSFC with costs and interest by its order dated 24th November 2011. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.4, 7 and 8 before the trial court have preferred these appeals.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 1st respondent-KSFC and perused the material on record.
9. Appellant’s counsel in MFA Nos.9564/2012 and 365/2014 submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice as the trial court erroneously placed respondent Nos.7 and 8 ex-parte and proceeded in the matter against them. That the respondent Nos.7 and 8 before the court below did not participate in the proceedings as they were not served with notices and they did not file any statement of objections.
Hence, the impugned order as against them is in violation of principles of natural justice as it is passed without hearing them and is an ex-parte one.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.5401/2012 submitted that the liability of the respondents before the lower court is joint and several. Although the appellant who was respondent No.4 before the trial Court had appeared and filed his statement of objections, the impugned order is challenged on merits. He submitted that, in the event, this Court is to allow the appeals filed by respondent Nos.7 and 8 and remand the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration, then, appropriate orders may be made in MFA No.5401/2012 also. He submitted that the appellant has a good case on merits and therefore, the matter may be remitted for fresh consideration.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-KSFC supported the impugned order and contended that there is no merit in these appeals as far as the appellant in MFA No.5401/2012 is concerned, he had appeared before the trial Court and filed the statement of objections and let in his evidence and the trial Court has passed the orders on merits of the case after taking into consideration the evidence on record. That there is no merit in the appeal filed by the said appellant. He further submitted that the trial court had rightly placed other two appellants and other respondents before the trial court ex-parte as they did not respond to the notices issued by the trial court to them. He contended that steps were taken for service of notice on the respondents-borrowers. That only respondent No.4 appeared and filed the statement of objections and other respondents did not appear even though they were aware of the proceedings before the trial Court. Infact, steps were taken to serve the other respondents by way of substituted service by filing an application under Order V Rule 20 of CPC. The trial court permitted for publication of notice by way of substituted service to other respondents. Newspaper publication was taken. The respondents, particularly the appellants in MFA No.9564/2012 and MFA No.365/2014, did not appear before the trial Court. Hence, they were rightly placed ex-parte and on the basis of evidence on record, the trial court allowed the petition filed by KSFC. That there are no merits in these appeals. That these appeals have been filed only to procrastinate the matter. The non appearance of the respondents before the trial court is deliberate in order to delay the recovery proceedings initiated by the KSFC. He submitted that there being no merit in these appeals, the same may be dismissed.
12. By way of reply, learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.9564/2012 drew our attention to the order sheet of the trial Court in respect of Mis.No.148/2005 and pointed out that filing of an application under Order V Rule 20 of CPC by the 1st respondent was wholly unwarranted. Even if the said application was maintainable, the trial court did not record its satisfaction prior to permitting respondent No.1 herein to take out notice to serve the other respondents by way of substituted service without ascertaining as to whether the notice by Registered Post Acknowledge Due (RPAD) which is in the usual course was served or not. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the trial Court in order to give an opportunity to the appellant to file her Statement to Objections to the petition and to consider the matter in accordance with law.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the following points arise for our consideration:
1) Whether the order impugned in these appeals would call for interference?
2) What order?
14. The fact that respondent No.1 herein-KSFC had filed a petition against the respondents therein under Sections 31 (1)(aa) and 32 of the Act seeking recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,92,84,553/- with costs and interest is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in the said petition, the trial court issued notices to the respondents. That only respondent No.4 appeared and filed his Statement of Objections and contested the matter. The other respondents were placed ex-parte. The controversy in these appeals i.e., in MFA Nos.9564/2012 and 365/2014 is as to whether the trial court was justified in placing these appellants and also other respondents except respondent No.4 ex-parte. In this regard, we have perused the order sheet of the trial Court right from 05.03.2005 up to 29.05.2006. The same reads as under:-
5.3.2005 RS One notice received and enclosed Issue notice to respondents returnable by 8.6.05 Sd/- 5.3 Sd/- 6.6 8.6.05 P-RS Notice to R6-unserved as left Notice to R1 to 5 & 7 & 8 Sri.NSS files vakalath for R2 Issue fresh notice to R1, R3, R4, R5 Steps taken by RPAD Await notice of R7, R8 not returned Later returned R1 & 3 - left R4 & 5 – no such person & not available.
Notice to R2, 7 and 8 not returned Sd/- 17.8 Later Advocate for R4 files IA u/s 151 CPC prays for permission to appear for R4 Notice to R1, 3, 5 & 6 issued by RPAD R4 is permitted to appear. Hence, notice shall not be issued to R4 Sd/-
20/6 Objection filed by Respondent No.2 under Section 31 (1) (aa) and 32 of KSFC Act with one Xerox copy. Received and enclosed.
Sd/- 11/8 One notice to R7 and four RPAD cover R1, R3, R5 and R6 received and enclosed.
Sd/- 11/8 17.08.05 P-RS R2-NSS RPAD to R1, 3, 5 and 6 unserved and left.
Await notice of R4, R7, R8 and fresh steps for R1, R3, R5, R6 by 28.10 Sd/-18.10 RPAD of R4- not returned Notice of R7 & 8 not returned.
28.10.05 P-RS R2-NSS Steps for R1, R3, 5 & 6 Notice to R4, 7 & 8 not returned Await notice and fresh steps by 10.11.05.
Sd/-
10.11.05 P-RS R2-NSS Fresh steps Called-absent, steps by 6.1.06.
Sd/-
6.1.06 P-RS R2-NSS steps for R1, 3 to 8 Await steps by 20.03.06 Sd/-
Advocate for respondent No.4 filed objections to the main petition in office received and enclosed.
Sd/- 10/1
Advocate for R4 filed objections to M.P. in the Sd/- 20.03 office and same is put up Draft verified and found correct.
Sd/- 22.03 Received draft Sd/- 24.03.06 29.05.06 P-RS R2-NSS R4-VBS Await paper publication of R1, 3 to 8 Called. PP is filed, Respondents are called out and absent. R1, R3, R5 to R8 are placed ex-parte.
Evidence by 30.8.06.
Sd/- 29.5.06 15. On perusal of the same, it is noted that the trial Court issued notices to the respondents for the first time on 05.03.2005 returnable by 08.06.2005. On the latter date, the trial Court noted that notice to respondent Nos.2, 7 and 8 had not yet been returned and it was awaited and therefore, notices were ordered on respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 returnable by 17.08.2005. On the said date, once again, the trial Court recorded await service of notice on respondent Nos.4, 7 and 8 and thereafter, steps were ordered to respondent Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 returnable by 28.10.2005. On the latter date, once again, steps were ordered on respondent Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 and it was recorded for await service on notice on respondent Nos.4, 7 and 8. Again on 06.01.2006, steps to respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 was ordered. But the trial Court did not ascertain on the next date i.e., on 20.03.2006 as to whether the notices were served on the respondents or the reason as to why they were not served. In fact on 06.01.2006, the trial court ordered for taking steps to respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 by 20.03.2006. On 20.03.2006, the trial Court did not ascertain as to what happened to the steps taken by the 1st respondent herein to serve respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 and instead, on the said date, application filed by respondent No.1-KSFC seeking for permission for taking out paper publication to the said respondents was ordered indicating the date of appearance as 29.05.2006.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants contended, the trial Court in a very causal and mechanical manner ordered for service of notice on the respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 by way of substituted service without complying with the mandatory requirements of Order V Rule 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for the sake of brevity). Order V Rule 20 (1) read with order V Rule 20 (1A) of CPC states that when the Court is satisfied that there is a reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that, for any other sufficient reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court can order the summons to be served by substituted service and one of the ways being by an advertisement in a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain. In terms of Order V Rule 20(2) of CPC, the effect of substituted service by order of Court is as if it had been made on the defendant personally. Therefore, the conditions precedent before permitting the service of notice to the defendants-respondents is by way of newspaper advertisement were not complied with in the instant case and as noted above, the permission for substituted service on the respondents was granted in a very casual and cavalier manner without recording its satisfaction that there was a reason to believe that the respondents were avoiding the service or there were any sufficient reason as to why the service could not be effected in the ordinary way or the usual course through RPAD. As a result, respondents before the trial court who are appellants herein were not served either through RPAD and were not even aware of the newspaper publication. Consequently, they did not appear on 29.05.2006, which was the date indicated for hearing of the petition. As a result, they were placed ex-parte and the petition was disposed of ex-parte as against the said respondents.
17. We find that in the absence of there being compliance of the mandatory requirements mentioned in Order V Rule 20 of CPC, there has been a violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petition filed by KSFC has been heard and disposed of by the trial court as against the unserved respondents without their participation.
18. Hence, on that ground alone, the impugned order dated 24.11.2011 passed in Mis.No.148 of 2005 by XXXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the respondents to appear before the trial Court to file their statement of objections, if any and to participate in the proceedings. Hence, MFA No.9564/2012 and MFA No.365/2014 are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Since we have set aside the impugned order in the aforesaid appeals, MFA No.5401/2012 is also allowed and disposed of and the matter is remanded to the trial Court to be considered afresh. This is because the liability of the respondents is joint and several and since we have set aside the order in connected appeals, we do not think it is just and proper to consider the case of the appellant alone in MFA No.5401/2012 on merits.
Since the appellants herein and the respondent No.1 are represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to appear before the concerned trial Court on 9th December 2019 without expecting any separate notices from the said Court.
The trial Court shall, however, issue notice to other respondents before it and dispose of the petition filed by 1st respondent herein in accordance with law.
Since Mis.No.148/2005 is of the year 2005, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
It is needless to observe that the parties shall co- operate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the petition.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
The registry of this Court to dispatch the original records to the trial Court forthwith.
In view of disposal of the appeals, I.A.No.1/2016 in MFA No.5401/2012 stand disposed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Prs*