Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 8 October 2026

1. 1. The respondent no.1 filed O.A. bearing no.896/2024 titled as **State Bank of India V. Bhupinder Kumar & others** which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Delhi. The appellant is the defendant no.3 in the O.A. The appellant/defendant no.3 filed written statement along with one application bearing I.A. no.1873/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The appellant contended that the appellant appeared before DRT on 07.05.2025 and requested copy of the O.A. from the respondent no.1 which was supplied/served via e-mail on 19.05.2025 to the counsel for the appellant. It was further contended that the appellant after receipt of the copy of O.A. collected the relevant information and documents which took a long time as it was a case of fraud involving multiple flats. Thereafter the counsel for the appellant was out of station for a substantial period of time in the month of June and due to these reasons written statement on behalf of the appellant could not be filed within the stipulated time. The delay in filing the written statement was not deliberate or intentional.

2. 2. The application bearing I.A. no.1873/2025 was contested by the respondent no.1 on the ground that it was barred by time and prayed that the I.A. bearing no.1873/2025 be dismissed.

3. 3. DRT-III, Delhi vide the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 has dismissed the I.A. bearing no.1873/205 by holding that DRT does not have any jurisdiction to extend the time for filing the written statement 45 days. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 is reproduced as under:- **5. Heard both the parties and perused the record.**

**6. From perusal of the record it is clear that there is delay of 17 days in filing the written statement and according to the provisions of the RDB Act, defendant no.3 is required to file the written statement within 30 days, with a provision for an additional 15 days in exceptional circumstances. Consequently, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the time for filing the WS beyond 45 days. In light of these circumstances, written statement cannot be accepted and IA is liable to be dismissed.**

**6. IA/1873/2025 for condonation of delay is dismissed and the written statement filed by the defendant no.3 is not taken on record.**

The appellant being aggrieved filed the present appeal.

**4.** Sh. Pallav Saxena, Advocate for the appellant stated that the appellant being the defendant no.3 in the O.A. was a victim of fraud committed by the defendant no.2 as the appellant had never sold the subject flat to the defendant 2. He further argued that in case of fraud limitation is not applicable and relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in **Radhika Khanna V. State**, 91 (2001) DLT 96. He also argued that the appellant does not fall within the definition of 'defendant' as per the RDB Act. Sh. Pallav Saxena during the course of arguments referred the ground as stated in the memo of appeal to challenge the impugned order and stated that the appellant does not owe any debt to the respondent no.1 and the delay in filing the written statement is liable to be condoned. The appellant could not have filed written statement without conducting thorough inquiry and investigation in the matter and accordingly it was argued that the impugned order be set aside and the appellant be permitted to file the written statement.

**6.** Sh. Ashish Batra, Advocate for the respondent no.1 defended the impugned order and stated that there is no provision for filing written statement beyond the prescribed period of 45 days and contended that the present appeal be dismissed.

**7.** Section 19(5)(i) provides that the defendant has to present the written statement of his defence within a period of 30 days from the date of service of summons along with original documents or true copies thereof. The proviso to the said section further provides that if the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, it can be extended in exceptional and special circumstances to be recorded in writing for a period not exceeding 15 days. Section 19(5)(i) of the Act reads as under:- **Section 19.**

**(5)(i) the defendant shall within a period of thirty days from the date of service of summons, present a written statement of his defence including claim for set-off under sub-section (6) or a counter-claim under sub-section (8), if any, and such written statement shall be accompanied with original documents or true copies thereof with the leave of the Tribunal, relied on by the defendant in his defence:**

**Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, the Presiding Officer may, in exceptional cases and in special circumstances to be recorded in writing extend the said period by such further period not exceeding fifteen days to file the written statement of his defence;**

8. It is reflecting that the defendant has to file written statement within maximum period of 45 days. The issue whether there can be further extension beyond 45 days to file written statement was subject matter of consideration of superior courts. The High Court of Delhi in **Anita Garg and others V State Bank of India**, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4311, in para 32 observed that Section 19(5)(i) of the Act does not provide for forfeiture of right to file written statement if it is not filed within the stipulated time or the extended time but the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time or extended time cannot be brought on record. The relevant para 32 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- **32. Though, Section 19(5)(i) does not, in terms, provide for the forfeiture of the right to file the written statement. If it is not filed within the stipulated time, or the extended time that could and may be granted, in our view, the consequence would be the same, as the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time, or extended time which could legally be granted for that purpose, cannot be brought on record. The intention of the Parliament can be gathered not only from the Statement of Objects and Reasons set out hereinabove, but also from the outer limit of time, for which extension may, in a deserving case by following the guideline laid down in the Section, be granted. The proceedings before the DRT are also proceedings arising out of commercial dealings and the disputes are commercial disputes. It would not stand to reason, that while the Parliament sought to enforce strict timelines for expeditious disposals of**

commercial disputes by enacting the Commercial Courts Act, it did not do so in respect of disputes of the same kind, decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunals. The only reason for not incorporating the forfeiture clause in Section 19 is, that the existing provision contained in Section 19 leads to the same conclusion.

9. The Supreme Court in **New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.**, (2020) 5 SCC 757, considered the issue whether the stipulated time or extended time for filing the written statement under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is similar to Section 19(5)(i) of the Act, can be extended or not and observed that the time limit specified for filing the response to the complaint is mandatory and not directory. The relevant para 33 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- **33. Once consequences are provided for not filing the response to the complaint within the time specified, and it is further provided that proceedings complying with the procedure laid down under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act shall not be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with, the intention of the legislature is absolutely clear that the provision of sub-section (2)(a) of Section 13 of the Act in specifying the time-limit for filing the response to the complaint is mandatory, and not directory.**

10. The legal proposition as laid down by the Supreme Court was further re-affirmed and reiterated in **Daddy's Builders Private Limited & another V Manisha Bhargawa & another**, (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 669 and **Dr. Vijay Dixit & others V Pagadal Krishna Mohan & others**, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2279. It is apparent from the pronouncement of the Supreme Court that Section 13 although in the context of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is similar to the provisions contained in Section 19(5)(i) of the Act, the period of 45 days cannot be extended for filing the written statement by the defendant.

11. This Tribunal in Misc. Appeal bearing no.133/2024 titled as **Nikhil Poddar V. Punjab national Bank** which was decided on 01.07.2026 after referring case law as stated hereinabove also held that there is no provision in the RDB Act which permits DRT to condone the delay beyond 45 days in filing the written statement. The order dated 01.07.2026 was challenged before the Delhi High Court in WP(C) 13671/2026 titled as **Nikhil Poddar through his duly constituted attorney Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma V. Punjab National Bank**

through its **Authorised Representative** and the Delhi High Court vide the judgment dated 23.09.2026 also observed that the delay beyond the maximum period of 45 days as prescribed under Section 19(5)(i) of the Act cannot be condoned by any Court.

12. The arguments as advanced by Sh. Pallav Saxena, Advocate for the appellant are considered in the right perspective. The arguments that the appellant being the defendant no.3 was victim of fraud allegedly committed by the respondent no.2 and the appellant does not fall within the definition 'defendant' are without any basis and do not provide any help of the appellant. The arguments advanced by Sh. Saxena cannot be legally accepted. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by DRT. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

13. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

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

-pk