ORDER 17.5.2006 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 1st September 2005, passed by the Debts Recov¬ery Tribunal, Cuttack, in MA-614 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). By the said order, the Tribunal dismissed an application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte order dated 26.2.2003 passed by the said Tribunal in an application filed by the Opposite Party No.1, State Bank of India. 3. The ground which has been taken by the petitioner for setting aside the said ex parte order is contained in the appli¬cation filed by him before the Tribunal being numbered as MA-614 of 2005. From the said application it appears that the main grounds which were taken by the petitioner are stated in Para¬graphs-6, 7, 8 and 9 of the application. In Paragraph-6 it was stated that the petitioner had to go out of station for a consid¬erable time in connection with the medical treatment of his grown up son. The petitioner’s son who was prosecuting his studies as an Engineering student at R.E.C., Rourkela, was diagnosed as suffering from throat cancer. In connection with the treatment of his son, the petitioner with his family had to stay outside the State for a considerable time and thereafter the petitioner’s son succumbed to the ailment. Thereafter it took some time for the petitioner for getting over the shock due to untimely death of his son. Thereafter, steps were taken to contest the matter. But in the meantime, the Tribunal had dismissed the matter ex parte and, as such, application was filed for setting aside the order. From the impugned order which has been passed by the Tribu¬nal, it appear that the fact of illness and untimely death of the petitioner’s son was not disputed. The fact could not be denied by the opposite parties. Despite that, the matter was not re¬stored and in Paragraph-7 of the impugned order, the said Tribu¬nal held :- “after passing the ex parte order dated 26.2.2003 now he has come forward with this petition that his son was not doing well, hence he could not attend this Tribunal.” This Court cannot appreciate the manner in which the Tribunal has not considered the reason for non-appearance of the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that considering the explantion which has been offered in this case the delay should have been condoned as the Tribunal should have taken into consid¬eration the normal human behaviour. This Court is also of the opinion that the Tribunal has failed to discharge its discretion in the proper matter as a judicial Tribunal. Section 22(2) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 provides that he said Tribunal shall have, for the purpose of discharging its functions under the said Act, the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit, in respect of matters stated therein and one of such powers is setting aside any order of dismissal of any order that has been passed ex parte. The order refusing to set aside the ex parte order has been challenged in this writ peti¬tion. This Court is constrained to observe that the Tribunal possibly did not discharge its function like a Civil Court while passing this particular order. This is not expected from the Tribunal. Even though the order is an appealable order but con¬sidering the manner in which the Tribunal has exercised its power, this Court disinclined to interfere in this case in view of the pronouncement of law by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, reported in A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 86. Even though the order is an appealable order but con¬sidering the manner in which the Tribunal has exercised its power, this Court disinclined to interfere in this case in view of the pronouncement of law by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, reported in A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 86. In Paragraph-11 of the said judgment at page 94, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court presided over by Hon’ble Chief Justice Sri S.R. Das made it clear that :- “If an inferior Court or tribunal of first instance acts wholly without jurisdiction or patently in excess of jurisdiction or manifestly conducts the proceedings before it in a manner which is contrary to the rules of natural justice and all accept¬ed rules of procedure and which offends the superior Court’s sense of fair play the superior Court may, we think, quite prop¬erly exercise its power to issue prerogative writ of certioraris to correct the error of the Court or tribunal of first instance even if an appeal to another inferior Court or tribunal was available and recourse was not had to it or if recourse was had to it, it confirmed what ex facie was a nullity for reasons aforementioned.” In our opinion, the said principle applies to the present order of the Tribunal. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, we are setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 1.9.2005 and set aside the ex parte decree. It is made clear that all subsequent orders which were passed after 26.2.2003 also cannot be given effect to. But since the matter was pending for a long time, we direct the petitioner to approach the Tribunal with a copy of this order on 25th May, 2006 and direct the Tribunal to fix a date, hear the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law as early as possible. We, however, do not make any observation on the merits of the main case which is pending before the Tribunal. In view of this order, this Court makes it clear that when the matter will be heard again, the petitioner will ensure that other guarantors and mortgagors would also appear and because of their non-appearance at the time of hearing, the matter should not be delayed. 5. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. In view of this order, this Court makes it clear that when the matter will be heard again, the petitioner will ensure that other guarantors and mortgagors would also appear and because of their non-appearance at the time of hearing, the matter should not be delayed. 5. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. Application allowed.