Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Madras
Ajit I. Patel And Ors. vs Syndicate Bank on 16 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: I(2004)BC3
ORDER
A. Subbulakshmy, J. (Chairperson)
1. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Hyderabad, in dismissing the petition to condone the delay of 82 days in filing the Review Petition, the appeal is preferred.
2. Counsel for the appellant submits that after the disposal of the Original Application (OA) by the PO, DRT, there was some problem between the appellants and their Counsel and the Counsel did not return all the papers to the appellants and the appellants had to get certified copies of papers and then they had to take steps for filing in review petition and so the delay of 82 days had occurred in filing the Review petition and the delay must be condoned. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that what all stated in the Review petition are only appealable in the Appellate Court and further, there is no sufficient and proper reason given for condoning the delay of 82 days in filing the Review petition. He further submitted that for the outstanding due to the Bank, Suit was filed in the Civil Court in the year 1992 and after the formation of DRT the Suit was transferred to the DRT and there it was taken up and final Order was passed. After passing of the final Order on 8.4.2002, the appellants defendants filed petition to review the final Order along with a petition to condone the delay of 82 days in filing the Review Petition and the PO, DRT, dismissed that petition as there was no sufficient ground to condone the delay.
3. In the Affidavit filed in support of that petition it is stated by the defendant that the Counsel asserted that he did not have any papers and the papers have been submitted to the Tribunal and the defendants had to arrange to obtain certain certified copies of papers which they could do only on 31.7.2002 and they became available on 2.8.2002 and it took a little more time to fix up a Counsel who sought additional documents and they were able to arrange only on 26.8.2002 and in filing the Review Petition delay of 82 days had occurred and there is no wilfulness or negligence on the part of the appellant and the delay has to be condoned.
4. Final Order was passed in the OA on 8.4.2002. After passing of the final order the defendants filed petition to condone the delay of 82 days in filing the petition to review the final Order. In his Order dated 9.9.2002, the PO, DRT, has observed that no sufficient cause for not filing the petition in time is established and the failure on the part of the Counsel to return the case bundle, the time taken by the petitioners in fixing a new Counsel and to file a petition arc reasons which do not reflect the bona fides of the petitioners and will never in any way tantamount to a sufficient cause. He has further observed that the delay of 82 days has not at all been explained and it is a well settled principle of law that each day of delay should be explained on a day-to-day basis and the petition is bereft of any such explanation and the petition is devoid of merits and the PO, DRT, has dismissed that petition. The PO, DRT, has stated in his Order that no sufficient and proper reason is given for condoning the delay.
5. Counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, VII (1998) SLT 334=IV (1998) CLT 63 (SC)=(1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123 and Radhakrishna Rai v. Allahabad Bank, (2000) 9 SCC 733, on the aspect of condonation of delay. In (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Apex Court has held that the Words 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally and acceptability of explanation for the delay is the sole criterion, length of delay is not relevant and in the absence of anything showing mala fide, Court should normally condone the delay and the words 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice". In this case, the Apex Court has observed that in the absence of anything showing mala fide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, Court should normally condone the delay. In (2000) 9 SCC 733, the Apex Court has observed that the "Appellant seeking condonation of delay on the ground that he was kept under a wrong impression by his Counsel that the appeal was pending before High Court whereas no such appeal had been filed by the Counsel, though the delay was unduly long, the cause shown by the petitioner was sufficient to justify condonation of the delay in filing the appeal". In this case, delay of 1418 days had occurred in filing the appeal and the Apex Court has observed that the party was kept under the wrong impression by his Counsel that the appeal was pending before the High Court whereas no such appeal had been filed by the Counsel and so there was no doubt a long delay and the cause shown by the petitioner was sufficient to justify condoning the delay in filing the appeal arid on such occasion that delay was condoned.
6. In the case on hand, it is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner had to arrange and obtain certified copies of papers which the appellant could do only on 31.7.2002 and get all the copies on 2.8.2002. The Order was passed in the main OA on 8.4.2002. The appellant could have taken steps immediately to obtain the certified copy. In the Affidavit filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, it is stated that immediately after passing of the final order the appellant contacted his Counsel for the connected papers and the appellant was told that all the documents were submitted to the Tribunal. So, it is evident even from the petition filed that the appellant was aware that all the documents were before the Tribunal. The appellant did not take any steps to obtain certified copies of the Order and file it in time before the Tribunal. In fact, the appellant applied for obtaining certified copies only in July, 2002 for the Order passed in April, 2001. There was a lapse of three months even though the appellant was aware that the Order was passed on 8.4.2002. The appellant did not take any steps immediately to obtain certified copy from the Tribunal and file it before the Tribunal. In fact, he applied for copies only in July, 2002 and obtained certified copies in August, 2002 and filed the petition belatedly. No sufficient cause and reason is shown even though the appellant was aware of the disposal of the OA on 8.4.2002. The appellant did not take steps immediately to obtain the copies and file the petition in time. The reason given by the appellant is not at all a convincing one and the PO, DRT, rightly dismissed the petition. I see no infirmity in the Order passed by the PO, DRT, Hyderabad.
7. Appeals are dismissed.