R. S. TRIPATHI, CHAIRPERSON., J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 25th September, 2002 passed by the D. R. T. , Allahabad in M. A. No. 65/2001 dismissing the application for recall of ex parte order dated 27th July, 2001 moved by the appellant under section 22 (2) (g) of R. D. D. B. F. I. Act, 1993. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the history giving rise to the present appeal is that in transfer Application No. 1303/2000 the learned D. R. T. passed an order for dismissal of the case for default of the present appellant on 27th July 2,001. The appellant moved an application for recall of above order under section 22 (2) (g) of the Act, 1993 on the ground that the above noted transfer application was actually allotted to Shri Sharad Ranjan Nigam, Advocate and since the applicant bank had some other Counsels also for doing pairvi in bank cases, one of such Advocates Shri Dinesh Kumar Pathak got the file of above noted case of transfer application on the ground that case had been allotted to him by the bank. Accordingly the applicant moved for recall on behalf of the bank. As the file was with Shri D. K. Pathak, Advocate, the other Counsel could not turn up, although Shri D. K. Pathak himself was present in the Court on 27th July, 2001, but could not respond and inform the Court that actually he had not been allotted above noted case. The Junior Counsel of Shri D. K. Pathak was also present at that time, but he also did nothing, consequently on account of absence, above transfer application was dismissed for default on 27th July, 2001. According to the appellant bank when Counsel Shri S. R. Nigam informed the bank at its headquarter at Lucknow for dismissal of the case for default and then it was found that Shri D. K. Pathak had been actually allotted another case of New general Motor Finance Company Limited Shahjahanpur, whereas this case was of General Motor Finance Company Limited, Lucknow, Bareilly and shahjahanpur and the instant transfer application case was not handed over to shri D. K. Pathak as it pertained to General Motor Finance Company Limited, shahjahanpur. The bank also pleaded that Shri S. R. Nigam was its Counsel on the date of dismissal as well as on this date also. The bank also pleaded that Shri S. R. Nigam was its Counsel on the date of dismissal as well as on this date also. The bank pleaded that due to some differences in the name of other party Shri D. K. Pathak, Advocate had taken the file under some confusion and misunderstanding, although he had been allotted another case and not this case. It was pleaded by the bank that on account of above confusion and mistake, the order dated 29th March, 2001 for steps required for publication could not be taken, hence an application for recall of the order dated 27th July, 2001 had been moved, but it was rejected without any justif ication. ( 3 ) THE above application for restoration has been contested and opposed from the side of the respondent before the D. R. T. , by filing a detailed objection, wherein it was pleaded that there was no material to support the contention of the bank made in the application under section 22 (2) (g) of the Act. The opposite party also pleaded that it is not understandable as to how an authorized agent could escape his responsibility to attend the case when it was fixed. According to the bank, two cases on account of which bank claims confusion or having different application/transfer application numbers with different years and due to the deliberate negligence the bank committed default. The opposite party also pleaded that the application for recall is devoid of any force, hence it should be rejected. ( 4 ) I have heard Shri Sharad Ranjan Nigam, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rajesh Tandon, Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the original record of the present appeal. From the perusal of the original record, it is clear that on 29th March, 2001 T. A. No. 1303/2000 was taken up by the Tribunal and at that time Shri S. R. Nigam, Advocate was present for the applicant before the D. R. T. and there was none for other side. The applicant bank was required to take steps for publication within ten days and 27th july, 2001 was fixed for filing reply along with evidence on affidavit at allahabad. The applicant bank was required to take steps for publication within ten days and 27th july, 2001 was fixed for filing reply along with evidence on affidavit at allahabad. On 27th July, 2001 the Counsel was present, but they were not taking the part in the proceedings, hence on the same date the case was ordered to be dismissed in default with costs. ( 5 ) FROM the perusal of these orders, it is clear that the presence of Counsel for the appellant bank on 27th July, 2001 has been noted, but it has been observed by the D. R. J. , that they (bank) were not taking part in the proceedings, therefore, in absence of any compliance of the order dated 29th March, 2001, the transfer application was dismissed for default. There is absolutely no explanation from the side of the applicant bank as to why despite noting of presence of counsel on 27th July, 2001 the bank Counsel did not do anything. No explanation has been given from the side of the bank in the recall application for not taking part or for not taking steps as ordered by the Tribunal on 29th March, 2001 while fixing next date 27th July, 2001. This order is as under : "sri S. R. Nigam Counsel for the applicant. None for the defendants. Applicant will take steps through publication within 10 days. Fix 27th July, 2001 for filing reply along with evidence on affidavit at Allahabad". ( 6 ) THE important fact, which cannot escape our mind, is that the restoration application was moved on 23rd August, 2001 on behalf of the bank through shri S. R. Nigam, Advocate and the ground taken in this application is that shri Nigam on that date informed the Tribunal that case had not been allotted to him but to Shri D. K. Pathak, who along with his junior is also said to be present, but nothing was done. The case number, the year of the two cases which are said to have created confusion, are undoubtedly different, therefore, there was no question of any confusion or misunderstanding if at all the case number or year of the case would have been taken into account. The case number, the year of the two cases which are said to have created confusion, are undoubtedly different, therefore, there was no question of any confusion or misunderstanding if at all the case number or year of the case would have been taken into account. The affidavit filed on behalf of appellant in support of application moved under section 22 (2) (g) of the act is of Yogesh Kumar, who happens to be a clerk of the Counsel Shri S. R. Nigam. He has verified this affidavit on the basis of his personal knowledge. He has nowhere stated that he was present, when the aforesaid confusion with regard to the two cases of different parties cropped up in the mind of Counsel or any other person representing the bank. It is not acceptable that the confusion, which was created in the mind of Pathak with regard to the above noted transfer application, was also in the personal knowledge of above clerk of Shri S. R. Nigam. However, the case on, 27th July, 2001 was dismissed for default, although this case was not at all fixed for hearing on that date. On 27th July, 2001 the D. R. T. had ordered for filing reply along with evidence on affidavit at Allahabad. The bank was required to take steps through publication within ten days. That order had not been complied with. There is not a single word by way of explanation form the side of the bank as to why the compliance of this order was not made for taking steps for publication within the period of ten days. The entire restoration application and affidavit is silent on this point. Howsoever confusion would have been to the Counsel, the steps would have been taken and at least by Mr. Nigam, who was present on 29th March, 2001, the bank should have been informed about this order. When the orders for steps were passed by the D. R. T. why it was not complied with or why it was not communicated to the bank has not at all been explained, therefore, under the circumstances, there is absolutely no ground for recalling the order and the learned D. R. T. has committed no error in passing the impugned order. With these observations, this appeal has no force and it deserves dismissal. ORDER ( 7 ) THE appeal is hereby dismissed. With these observations, this appeal has no force and it deserves dismissal. ORDER ( 7 ) THE appeal is hereby dismissed. Judgment pronounced in open Court on separate sheets. A copy of this judgment be sent to the parties as well as D. R. T. alongwith original records, if summoned earlier. Appeal Dismissed. .