ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated. 19.8.2004 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in Recovery Proceeding No. 135 of 2002 by which immovable property of the petitioner has been sought to be attached for realization of the dues of the respondent-State Bank of India and further for quashing the judgment dated 15.1.2002 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in P.T. Case No. 22/99. 2. The respondent-Bank filed Title Suit No. 38 of 1988 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj for recovery of about Rs. Twelve lacs which was taken by the petitioner by way of term loan and cash credit facility. The said suit was eventually transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal pursuant to enforcement of Recovery of Debt Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Debt Recovery Tribunal passed ex-parte judgment and the same was put in execution. In execution of the decree, the impugned order of attachment has been issued. 3. I have heard Mr. P.P.N. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank. 4. Mr. P.P.N. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that he Title (Mortgage) Suit No. 38 of 1988 was dismissed for default on 31.7.1995 and the same was restored vide order dated 30.7.1996 passed in Misc. Case No. 25 of 1995. Learned counsel submitted that neither before nor after restoration of the suit, notice was given to the petitioner and the suit was eventually transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal also, without giving notice to the petitioner, passed the impugned judgment. Learned counsel further submitted that the factory premises of the petitioner is a sick unit and, therefore, the order of attachment is wholly without jurisdiction. 5. From perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the documents annexed therewith, I find that before the suit was dismissed for default, the petitioner had appeared and filed written statement. But on the date of dismissal of the suit, the petitioner-defendant was not present in the Court. Since it was a dismissal under Order IX, Rule 2, CPC. no notice was required before restoration of the suit. But on the date of dismissal of the suit, the petitioner-defendant was not present in the Court. Since it was a dismissal under Order IX, Rule 2, CPC. no notice was required before restoration of the suit. I further find that after restoration of the suit, steps were taken for service of notice and even after transfer of the suit to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, notices were issued several times and ultimately it was served by publication in the newspaper. Curiously enough, notice of attachment was also served by affixing the same in the factory premises of the petitioner on 28.8.2000 but the petitioner did not take any step and has filed this writ petition only on 11.8.2005. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the contention of the petitioner that he had no notice or knowledge about the judgment passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the order of attachment, cannot be believed. Admittedly the petitioner appeared in the suit and filed written statement and, therefore, he was supposed to know the whereabout of his case. Be that as it may, notices were duly served upon the petitioner by the Debt Recovery Tribunal before passing ex parte judgment. In that view of the matter, the contention made by the petitioner is devoid of any merit. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed.