JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, C.J. 1. Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Ali, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the letters dated 15.02.2018, 7.9.2018 as also the notice dated 20.09.2016. In addition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.06.2017 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and the order dated 2.2.2018 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guahati (for short “DRT”). 3. The petitioner herein is a borrower from the respondent Bank. Since his account was classified as NPA, the respondent Bank initiated a proceeding under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’). The petitioner herein while assailing the action of the respondents had preferred an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which was registered as O.A. No.101/2016 before the DRT. In the pending proceeding, since the petitioner had not diligently prosecuted the matter, the DRT through the order dated 16.6.2017 dismissed the application for non-prosecution. The application seeking setting aside of the said order and consideration of the application in O.A. No.101/2016 was considered by the DRT while disposing of I.A. No.93/2017. Through the order dated 2.2.2018, the application for re-call was dismissed and, accordingly, the appeal that had been filed under Section of the SARFAESI Act had come to a close for default. It is to be noted that another application for re-call, which was filed by the petitioner, had been withdrawn. 4. In that background, the petitioner at an earlier stage was before this Court in W.P. (C) No.7745/2018 seeking relief against the respondent Bank in respect of the proceeding initiated under the SARFAESI Act. This Court at that stage had taken note that the petitioner who had availed the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and since the said appeal had been dismissed for default, the petitioner without assailing such orders, cannot seek for consideration of the writ petition before this Court. Accordingly, the said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 17.12.2018 reserving liberty to the petitioner to assail the orders passed by the DRT dismissing the appeal for default and also the dismissal of the application in I.A. No.93/2017, where by the DRT had declined the prayer to restore the appeal. Accordingly, the said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 17.12.2018 reserving liberty to the petitioner to assail the orders passed by the DRT dismissing the appeal for default and also the dismissal of the application in I.A. No.93/2017, where by the DRT had declined the prayer to restore the appeal. It is in that light, the instant petition has been filed. 5. The respondents who were notified are represented by their counsel. In that light, we have taken up the petition for consideration. 6. Though an additional affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner indicating the process that has been further initiated by the respondent Bank and the proposal for one time settlement that is submitted by the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the said aspect cannot be gone into in the instant writ petition since a parallel proceeding at the instance of the petitioner after having filed the appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was initiated and which has culminated because of not prosecuting the same. 7. In that view, we have limited the consideration of the writ petition only to consider the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 16.6.2017 passed by the DRT in O.A. No.101/2016 and the order dated 2.2.2018 passed in I.A. No.93/2017 in O.A. No.101/2016. In that regard, a perusal of the order dated 16.6.2017 would disclose that the DRT having noticed that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The application in I.A. No.93/2017 was dismissed through the order dated 2.2.2018 since, according to the DRT, sufficient reason has not been indicated for non-appearance on the earlier date and was of the opinion that the recall, as sought, cannot be ordered. 8. Though in a normal circumstance, taking note of the manner in which the appeal had been prosecuted before the DRT, the DRT would be justified, what cannot be lost sight of is that the appeal which was prosecuted before the DRT was a statutory appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In that circumstance, if the petitioner is now to suffer only due to default of non-appearance of the advocate on the date of hearing, prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the appeal is required to be restored for consideration on merit. In that circumstance, if the petitioner is now to suffer only due to default of non-appearance of the advocate on the date of hearing, prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the appeal is required to be restored for consideration on merit. On restoration, the DRT is to look into the merit of the appeal and the ultimate decision is to be based on the same. In any event, on that aspect, we do not indicate the manner in which the consideration is required to be made. 9. Keeping these aspects of the matter in view, the order dated 16.6.2017 and the order dated 2.2.2018, which are impugned herein at Annexures-9 and 8 respectively, are set aside. The O. A. No.101/2016 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guahati is restored to its file. Since the parties are represented by their counsel, they shall appear before the DRT on 30.01.2019 at 11.00 A.M. The DRT shall, thereupon, restore the application and regulate the proceeding in accordance with law. All contentions on merit are left open to be urged before the DRT. 10. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.