Mr Arjun Gupta vs BANK OF INDIA on 30 September 2026

1. The instant application is filed for condonation of delay of 04 days in filing the present appeal due to the reasons as stated in the application. After considering all facts, the delay stands condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.

**Misc. Appeal No.282/2026**

2. The respondent no.1 filed O.A. bearing No. 15/2025 titled as **Bank of India & others v. Arjun Gupta** which is stated to be pending before the DRT-II, Delhi. The appellant is the defendant no.1 and one of the Legal heirs of deceased defendant no.3. The appellant filed I.A. bearing No. 893/2025 read with Section 151 CPC for seeking dismissal of the Original Application on various preliminary grounds including maintainability, absence of invocation of guarantee and pendency of insolvency proceedings etc.

3. The DRT-III, Delhi vide impugned order dated 08.07.2026 has dismissed the I.A. bearing No. 893/2025 by observing that at interlocutory stage the DRT cannot undertake a mini trial regarding the issues as raised in the application. It was observed that the objection relating to limitation and discharge of surety which require appreciation of documentary evidence and interpretation of the contractual terms. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced as under:

9. The applicant seeks dismissal of the Original Application by invoking the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC. It is a settled proposition that inherent powers are intended to supplement the procedure prescribed by law and cannot be exercised in a manner which overrides or defeats the statutory scheme governing adjudication of disputes.

10. A careful reading of the application shows that virtually every ground urged by the applicant pertains to the merits of the Original Application. The pleas regarding maintainability, invocation of guarantee, limitation, effect of revival letters, discharge of surety under Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act, pendency of insolvency proceedings and the legal consequences flowing therefrom are all mixed questions of fact and law. Their adjudication necessarily requires examination of the loan documents, guarantee deeds, correspondence exchanged between the parties, insolvency records, pleadings and evidence which are matters to be considered at the stage of final adjudication of the Original Application.

11. At this interlocutory stage, this Tribunal cannot undertake a mini trial for determining whether the guarantee was validly invoked, whether limitation stands extended, whether the guarantors stand discharged or whether the insolvency proceedings have any legal impact upon the maintainability of the Original Application. These are substantial issues which must be decided after the parties have been afforded full opportunity to lead evidence and advance final arguments.

12. The plea that the bank has filed its claim before the Bankruptcy Trustee or that insolvency proceedings are pending also does not automatically render the Original Application liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The legal consequences of such proceedings are themselves matters requiring adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The same cannot be conclusively determined in an application under Section 151 CPC.

13. Similarly, the objections relating to limitation and discharge of surety require appreciation of documentary evidence and interpretation of contractual terms. Such issues cannot be decided without a complete trial. Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked as a substitute for adjudication on merits or to short-circuit the statutory procedure contemplated under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act.

The appellant being aggrieved filed the present appeal

4. Sh. Pranav Kumar, Counsel for the appellant has referred the prayer D of the relief sought and stated that the appellant under being the proposed bankruptcy as such the present O.A. cannot be proceed against the appellant and argued that the impugned order be set aside.

5. The perusal of impugned order reflects that the DRT-III, Delhi has taken the correct view that at the interlocutory stage the Tribunal cannot undertake the mini trial of the issue as raised in the application bearing I.A. No. 893/2025. The impugned order does not require any interference by this Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

A handwritten signature in blue ink, possibly reading 'Sudhir', is written on a yellow rectangular sticky note. The note is placed over a horizontal dashed line.

**(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**

-N