Kerala High Court
Jacob P.A vs Canara Bank on 17 February, 2020
Author: K.Harilal
Bench: K.Harilal, C.S.Dias
RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 28TH MAGHA,
1941
RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMA 128/2001 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER:
JACOB P.A.
AGED 65 YEARS
VELANKANNY MATHA OIL MILLS, MULAKUNNATHUKAVU
P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, NEW
RESIDING AT PULIKOTTIL HOUSE, PUDHURKKARA,
NEAR THARAYIL BUS STOP, AYYATHOLE P.O.,PIN
CODE-680 003,THRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA STATE
BY JACOB P.A.(PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
1 CANARA BANK
ITS MANAGER, MULAKUNNATHUKAVU BRANCH,
MULAKUNNATHUKAVU P.O.,PIN CODE -680 581,
2 K.A.DEVASSY,
KUTHOOR HOUSE, KOZHAY VILLAGE,
MULAKUNNATHUKAVU P.O.,PIN CODE -680
581,THRISSUR DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE (AUCTION PURCHASER)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.02.2020, THE COURT ON 17.02.2020 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001
2
K.HARILAL, & C.S DIAS,JJ.
---------------------------------
R.P No.1081 of 2019
in
C.M.P No.1794 of 2001
in
C.M.A No.128 of 2001
----------------------------
Dated this the 17th February, 2020.
ORDER
In view of the order passed in CMP No.1/2019 in the review petition, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-K.HARILAL, JUDGE ma/12.02.2020 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE /True copy/ P.S to Judge RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 3 K.HARILAL, & C.S DIAS,JJ.
--------------------------------- CMP No.1 of 2019
in R.P No.1081 of 2019 in C.M.P No.1794 of 2001 in C.M.A No.128 of 2001
----------------------------
Dated this the 17th February, 2020 ORDER Dias,J.
This application is filed by the review petitioner to condone the delay of 6096 days in preferring the above review petition, which is filed to review the order in CMP No.1794/2001 in CMA No.128/2001.
2. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of the application, asserting that he had conducted the cases bearing Nos.O.P 19181/2001, O.S 906/2000, O.P. 38237/2001, R.P. 1071/2009 in A.S 313/2002, S.L.P. 32068-32070/2012 which was converted to Civil Appeal No.7295-7297/2013, E.A 1539/2013 in E.P No.47/1999 in O.S 95/1985, RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 4 O.P.862/2015, W.P.341/2016, R.P 3486/2016 in W.P. 341/2016 and Curative Petition D.559/2017. In view of conducting of the above cases, the petitioner has not shown any negligence to file the review petition. Hence the delay may be condoned.
3. The application is opposed by the 1st respondent, who has filed a detailed counter affidavit. The 1st respondent has averred that the petitioner had filed numerous cases against the respondent bank. Finally the disputes between the parties were settled before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the present application is not maintainable. It is an abuse of process of law. The petitioner who failed to repay a loan availed from the bank suffered a decree. The decree has become final. As per Ext.R1(a) order dated 29.8.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7295-7297/2013, it is recorded that all disputes between the petitioner and the 1 st RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 5 respondent would stand closed, and the proceedings, if any, pending before any Forum would stand withdrawn, and the allegations raised against the Canara Bank and its officials would stand expunged. Accordingly, the appeals were disposed of. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No.341/2016 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Annexure P-36 order dated 18.7.2016. Then RP(C) 3486/2016 was dismissed as per Annexure P-39 order, and Curative Petition(C)D No.559/2017 was also dismissed as per Annexure P-40 order dated 10.7.2019. Hence the above application may be dismissed.
4. Heard Sri.Jacob P.A, the party in person and Sri.M.R.Gopalakrishnan Nair, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
5. The petitioner argued that this Court had dismissed CMP No. 1794/2001 in CMA No.128/2001 without considering the merits of the RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 6 application to condone the delay of 917 days, but considered the merits of the case, which is an error apparent on face of record. The order passed in CMP No.1794/2001 is against the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, that a liberal view is to be taken in condoning delay. He prayed that the delay to file the present review petition may be condoned and the review petition be allowed and CMA 128/2001 be restored to file.
6. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent argued that there is absolutely no explanation or sufficient cause pleaded in the affidavit accompanying the application, explaining the inordinate delay in filing the review petition. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Ext.R1(a) order has categorically declared that all proceedings between the parties would stand closed. Therefore, this Court may not resurrect a RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 7 concluded chapter.
7. The sole question that emerges for consideration in this application is whether the petitioner has pleaded 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay of 6096 days.
8. This Court by its order dated 18.6.2001 dismissed CMP 1794/2001 in CMA 128/2001, filed by the petitioner, to condone the delay of 915 days. It was observed by this Court that in addition to the long delay, the petitioner had not raised any objection to the proclamation effected under O.XXI, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, his remedy under Order XXI, Rule 90(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is barred by law. Consequentially, this Court dismissed CMA 128/2001 on 18.6.2001 itself.
9. The petitioner without challenging the above order, instituted parallel proceedings before this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 8 The Hon'ble Supreme Court finally by Annexure R1(a) order dated 29.8.2013 closed all proceedings between the parties as settled.
10. It is after more than six years after the passing of Ext.R1(a) order, that the petitioner has now preferred the present review petition with the above application, to set aside the order in CMP No.1794/2001 in CMA 128/2001. Un-disputedly there is a delay of 6096 days i.e., a delay of 16 ½ years in filing the present review petition. The only reason pleaded in the affidavit is that he conducted numerous cases against the 1 st respondent before various courts which establishes that there is no negligence on his part.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.Madhuri Goud v. B.Damodara Reddy [(2012) 12 SCC 693] has held that, what colour the expression 'sufficient cause' would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on the bona fide RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 9 nature of the explanation. If the court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.
12. In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishna Moorthy[ (1998) 7 SCC 123] it is held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 10 never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus found on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim 'interest reipublicae up sit finis litium' ( it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
13. The averments in the affidavit does not contain a whisper regarding any cause, leave alone sufficient, explaining the inordinate delay of 16 ½ RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 11 years. The contention that the petitioner conducted numerous cases before several courts, is not a sufficient cause or ground to condone the inordinate delay. In addition to the above reason, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annexure R1(a), that all proceedings before any Forum would stand withdrawn, stares at the petitioner. Therefore, we are not satisfied of the reasons pleaded in the affidavit to condone the inordinate delay. The application is devoid of any merits and bona fides, and is hence dismissed.
Sd/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE ma/12.02.2020 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE /True copy/ P.S to Judge K.HARILAL, & C.S DIAS,JJ.
--------------------------------- R.P No.1081 of 2019
in C.M.P No.1794 of 2001 in C.M.A No.128 of 2001
----------------------------
Dated this the 17th February, 2020.
ORDER In view of the order passed in CMP No.1/2019 in the review petition, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-K.HARILAL, JUDGE ma/12.02.2020 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE /True copy/ P.S to Judge RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 14 K.HARILAL, & C.S DIAS,JJ.
--------------------------------- CMP No.1 of 2019
in R.P No.1081 of 2019 in C.M.P No.1794 of 2001 in C.M.A No.128 of 2001
----------------------------
Dated this the 17th February, 2020 ORDER Dias,J.
This application is filed by the review petitioner to condone the delay of 6096 days in preferring the above review petition, which is filed to review the order in CMP No.1794/2001 in CMA No.128/2001.
2. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of the application, asserting that he had conducted the cases bearing Nos.O.P 19181/2001, O.S 906/2000, O.P. 38237/2001, R.P. 1071/2009 in A.S 313/2002, S.L.P. 32068-32070/2012 which was converted to Civil Appeal No.7295-7297/2013, E.A RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 15 1539/2013 in E.P No.47/1999 in O.S 95/1985, O.P.862/2015, W.P.341/2016, R.P 3486/2016 in W.P. 341/2016 and Curative Petition D.559/2017. In view of conducting of the above cases, the petitioner has not shown any negligence to file the review petition. Hence the delay may be condoned.
3. The application is opposed by the 1st respondent, who has filed a detailed counter affidavit. The 1st respondent has averred that the petitioner had filed numerous cases against the respondent bank. Finally the disputes between the parties were settled before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the present application is not maintainable. It is an abuse of process of law. The petitioner who failed to repay a loan availed from the bank suffered a decree. The decree has become final. As per Ext.R1(a) order dated 29.8.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7295-7297/2013, it is recorded RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 16 that all disputes between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent would stand closed, and the proceedings, if any, pending before any Forum would stand withdrawn, and the allegations raised against the Canara Bank and its officials would stand expunged. Accordingly, the appeals were disposed of. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No.341/2016 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Annexure P-36 order dated 18.7.2016. Then RP(C) 3486/2016 was dismissed as per Annexure P-39 order, and Curative Petition(C)D No.559/2017 was also dismissed as per Annexure P-40 order dated 10.7.2019. Hence the above application may be dismissed.
4. Heard Sri.Jacob P.A, the party in person and Sri.M.R.Gopalakrishnan Nair, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
5. The petitioner argued that this Court had dismissed CMP No. 1794/2001 in CMA RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 17 No.128/2001 without considering the merits of the application to condone the delay of 917 days, but considered the merits of the case, which is an error apparent on face of record. The order passed in CMP No.1794/2001 is against the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, that a liberal view is to be taken in condoning delay. He prayed that the delay to file the present review petition may be condoned and the review petition be allowed and CMA 128/2001 be restored to file.
6. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent argued that there is absolutely no explanation or sufficient cause pleaded in the affidavit accompanying the application, explaining the inordinate delay in filing the review petition. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Ext.R1(a) order has categorically declared that all proceedings between the parties would stand RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 18 closed. Therefore, this Court may not resurrect a concluded chapter.
7. The sole question that emerges for consideration in this application is whether the petitioner has pleaded 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay of 6096 days.
8. This Court by its order dated 18.6.2001 dismissed CMP 1794/2001 in CMA 128/2001, filed by the petitioner, to condone the delay of 915 days. It was observed by this Court that in addition to the long delay, the petitioner had not raised any objection to the proclamation effected under O.XXI, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, his remedy under Order XXI, Rule 90(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is barred by law. Consequentially, this Court dismissed CMA 128/2001 on 18.6.2001 itself.
9. The petitioner without challenging the above order, instituted parallel proceedings before RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 19 this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court finally by Annexure R1(a) order dated 29.8.2013 closed all proceedings between the parties as settled.
10. It is after more than six years after the passing of Ext.R1(a) order, that the petitioner has now preferred the present review petition with the above application, to set aside the order in CMP No.1794/2001 in CMA 128/2001. Un-disputedly there is a delay of 6096 days i.e., a delay of 16 ½ years in filing the present review petition. The only reason pleaded in the affidavit is that he conducted numerous cases against the 1 st respondent before various courts which establishes that there is no negligence on his part.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.Madhuri Goud v. B.Damodara Reddy [(2012) 12 SCC 693] has held that, what colour the expression 'sufficient cause' would get in the factual matrix of RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 20 a given case would largely depend on the bona fide nature of the explanation. If the court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.
12. In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishna Moorthy[ (1998) 7 SCC 123] it is held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury so RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 21 suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus found on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim 'interest reipublicae up sit finis litium' ( it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
13. The averments in the affidavit does not contain a whisper regarding any cause, leave alone RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 22 sufficient, explaining the inordinate delay of 16 ½ years. The contention that the petitioner conducted numerous cases before several courts, is not a sufficient cause or ground to condone the inordinate delay. In addition to the above reason, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annexure R1(a), that all proceedings before any Forum would stand withdrawn, stares at the petitioner. Therefore, we are not satisfied of the reasons pleaded in the affidavit to condone the inordinate delay. The application is devoid of any merits and bona fides, and is hence dismissed.
Sd/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE ma/12.02.2020 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 24 Sd/-
K.HARILAL JUDGE Sd/-
C.S.DIAS JUDGE RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 25 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF 12 CENTS OF PETITIONERS PROPERTY ANNEXURE P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FORM (REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT) THRISSUR ANNEXURE P3 TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.I REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER , THRISSUR ANNEXURE P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.95/1985 OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR ANNEXURE P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS 95/1985 OF THE COURT, THRISUR ANNEXURE P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION LETTER SENT TO DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE THRISSUR BY CANARA BANK ANNEXURE P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION SICK UNIT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT CENTRE THRISSUR ANNEXURE P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLOMATION FORM SUB COURT, THRISSUR ANNEXURE P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.R.P. 750/97 DATED 22.09.1997 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ANNEXURE P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.1235/98 IN P.O.P 3/1998 DATED 08.01.1998 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR ANNEXURE P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.07.1198 IN E.A.676/1998 IN EP 287/1996 IN OS 95/1985 ANNEXURE P12 TRUE COPY OF THE (CHEQUE) APPLICATION C.A.142/1998 IN E.P.287/1996 IN OS 95/1985 SUBMITTED RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 26 BY THE CANARA BANK ANNEXURE P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ANNEXURE P14 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULAKUNNATHUKAVU ANNEXURE P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT IS ISSUED K.S.E.B OFFICE, MULAKUNNATHUKAVU ANNEXURE P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2001 IN C.R.P.581/2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA ANNEXURE P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2001 IN C.M.P.1794/2001 IN C.M.A 128/2001 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ANNEXURE P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATE 18.06.2011 IN C.M.A 128/2001 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT ANNEXURE P19 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATE 09.07.2001 IN O.P 19181/2001 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT ANNEXURE P20 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE P21 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL COMMISSION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION ANNEXURE P22 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2001 IN E.P.47/99 IN O.S.95/1985 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR ANNEXURE P23 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2002 IN O.P.38237/2001 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ANNEXURE P24 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THRISSUR ANNEXURE P25 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTER OFFICE, THRISSUR RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 27 ANNEXURE P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2006 IN I.A 3811/200 IN O.S 906/2000 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT THRISSUR ANNEXURE P27 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 4097/2008 IN O.S.906/200 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, THIRSSUR ANNEXURE P28 TRUE COPY OF HE ORDER IN R.P 1071/2009 IN A.S.313/2002 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ANNEXURE P29 TRUE COPY OF THE (STATEMENT) CALCULATION OF CLAIM AMOUNT SUBMITTED BY THE CANANRA BANK IN S.L.P. 32068-32070/2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ANNEXURE P30 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NUMBERS 7295-7297/2013 DATED 29/08/2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ANNEXURE P31 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN CIVIL APPEAL IN 7295-7297/2013 DATED 29.08.2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ANNEXURE P32 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ALLOWED IN E.A.540/2014 IN E.A.1559/2014 IN E.P.47/1999 IN OS 95/1985 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT THRISSUR ANNEXURE P33 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.A.1560/2013 IN E.P.47/1999 IN OS 95/1985 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT THRISSUR ANNEXURE P34 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.A.1559/2013 IN E.P.47/1999 IN OS 95/1985 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT THRISSUR ANNEXURE P35 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.07.2015 IN O.P.862/2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA ANNEXURE P36 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN.P341/2016 RP.No.1081 OF 2019 IN CMA. 128/2001 28 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ANNEXURE P37 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ANNEXURE P38 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.403128 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.3486/2016 IN WPC 341/2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ANNEXURE P39 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (NO.403129) IN REVIEW PETITION NO.3486/2016 IN W.PO.341/2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ANNEXURE P40 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CURATIVE PETITION D.559/2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT