Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
ASHOK KUMAR vs HDFC BANK on 28 September 2026
**DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI**
**Misc. Appeal No.347/2024**
**Arising out of OA no.763/2023 (DRT-II, Chandigarh)**
**Item No. 14**
**Sh. Ashok Kumar and another**
**V.**
**HDFC Bank Limited**
**28.09.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain**
**Present:** Sh. Amit Dhall, Advocate for appellant through VC
Ms. Aastha Pitale, Advocate for respondent no.1 through VC
This matter is taken up through Hybrid hearing.
**ORDER (ORAL)**
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The respondent no.1 filed O.A. bearing no.763/2023 titled as **HDFC Bank Vs Ashok Kumar and another** which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Chandigarh. DRT-II, Chandigarh vide order dated 12.02.2024 has declined to take written statement on record on behalf of the appellants by observing that the paper book was supplied on 12.07.2023 while the written statement was filed on 21.11.2023 i.e. beyond the period of limitation. The order dated 12.02.2024 is reproduced as under:
**Vide order dated 18.10.2023, Registrar-in-charge of this Tribunal suggested closure of right to file written statement.**
**It was stated on behalf of the defendants that the written statement was filed on 21.11.2023 since paper book was supplied on 12.07.2023, therefore, written statement filed on 21.11.2023, shall not be taken cognizance of.**
**To come up on 07.08.2025 for arguments.**
2. The appellant being aggrieved filed the present appeal.
3. The present appeal is filed after the delay of 9 months and 7 days and for condonation of delay an application bearing I.A. No.1111/2024 is filed. The appellant in para-2 of the application stated that the appellant no.1 was suffering from the cardiac disease and was undergoing consistent treatment. It is also mentioned that the appellant no.1 in June, 2024 also sustained over back fracture and has to undertake bed rest for a month. In these circumstances, it is argued that sufficient reason has been shown for condonation of delay. The application is claimed to be supported by the legal documents.
4. The application is contested by the respondent. Ms. Aastha Pitale, Advocate for the respondent no.1 argued that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condonation of delay of more than 7 months and the medical documents as relied upon by the appellants are not supporting the pleas as stated by the appellant in para-2 of the application. Accordingly, it is prayed and argued that the application be dismissed.
5. The perusal of medical documents reflects that most of the documents are the post passing of the impugned order dated 12.02.2024 and they are not supporting disease/ailments as claimed by the appellant in para-2 of the application bearing I.A. No.1111/2024.
6. After considering all facts and documents, this Tribunal is of the opinion that sufficient cause has not been shown for condonation of delay. Hence application is dismissed.
**Misc. Appeal No.347/2024**
7. As the delay is not condoned, hence the appeal is also dismissed along with pending applications, if any.
----- **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**
-v\$