POLO AMUSMENT PARK LIMITED vs JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED on 9 October 2026

DIBTS RDCOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHT Misc. App€al No.307/2026 Ariring out ofTA No.l708/2023 (DRT-II, Dethi) M/s Polo Am$ement Puk J.nnu & Kash mir Bank Limitcd ,nd .nother 09.10.2026 Hon'bl. Dr. .lustiQ Sudhir Kum.r.hin Present: Sh. Deepmshu Joshi, Advocate for appellant sh. Rdjrnder \tdl:. Ad\ocare ro, respordenr no I firoLtsh v( This matrer is lakcn up throu.sh Hybrid hearine.

r. The respondent no.l filed Original Application bea.ins T.A. No.1708/2023 tirled as Janmu & IGshmir Bank Limited v Ir,rs Poto Amrlemert Park ,nd other! which is slal€d to be pendins befo.e DRT-II, Delhi. The appellants were impleaded as defendant no. I and 2 in the Original Application. 2, The perusal of order dated 29.04.2024 passed in Original Applicanon reflects lhat lhe counsel for the appellant infomed DRT-II, Delhi that the documenl provided along witl the copy of the O.A. wer€ not legible dd thereafier ihe rcspondent ro.l was directed to supply the complete lesible mpy of O.A. paper book to lhe c.unset for the appellatus being the def€ndants no. 1 md 2 within 7 days and which in fact were supplied on 20.05.2024. Thereafter Written Statement was filed on 24.08.2024 beyond th€ pr€soribed periodof45 days.

3. The appellmts being lhe defenda no.l and 2 filed application be{ing I.A. \0.1442,2024 for condonation ol dela) oi l2 days in filing lhe Wrlrien Slalemenr which was dismissed vide impusned order dated 03.08.2026. The relevant portion oftle impusned order dated 03.08.2026 is reprcduced as und€r:

5. Ileard both the parties aDd perused the r€cord. OD perusal ofthe nle! it is cl6ar lhat the defendants w€re served with lhe copy ofthe OA prper book otr 20.05.2024, wheros the Writter StrtemeDt wis filed only on 24,01.2024, Thlux, the W.itteD Stltement hrs been filed beyond the maximum period of45 diys prescdb€d u €r the provisions ofth€ RDB Act. Urder the provisions ofthe RDB Act, this Tribunal hrs jurisdiction to ext€Dd the time Ior liling the Written Strtement only up to the stllrtory p€riod of45 day!, Once the above srid period has expired,lhis Tribunal h.s no juriidictioD to condo,e .h€ delay or to trke the WritteD St tement on record. AccordiDglyt lL ao. 349212024 is li.ble to be ,1, Sh. Deepaishu Joshi, Advocate for the appellals staled and admitted thal the copy of Original Application was supplied by lhe ofiic€ of Sh. Rajinder Wali, Advocate for the respondent.o-l on 20.05.2024 but seven pages amexed wilh the Original Application were illegibl€ and these pages are placed on record from paSes no.67-73 on the paper book. Sh. Deepanshu Joshi, Advocale turthq stated that he has refered lhese facB in the applicalion filed before DRT{I, Delhi for condonation of delay in filing the Writlen Statement but said fact has not been considercd by DRTJI, Delhi ib ihe impuSned order daled 03.08.2026. Accordingly, it is argued rhat ihe order dated 03.08.2026 be set aside and the appellants being.he defendants 1 and 2 be auowed to place on record the Written Statement as till today there is no complete serice of the Original Application bearing T.A. No. 1708/2023.

5. Sh. Rajinder Wali, Advocate appeared on bshalf of the respondent no.l slaled that the complete leSible copy of O.A. along with armexed documents was sened on 20.05.2024 and thereafter the appell ts behs the defendots no.l and 2 have never raised this issue either before DRT-II, D€lhi or 10 the counsel for the respondent no.l. It is turthe. stated that the.e is nor a single communication from the side ofthe appellanB to the said effect.

6. The !€rusal of rc@rd reflects that the documents as refened by Sh. Deepanshu Joshi during the coBe of d8me.t md placed on r€cord frcm pages no.67-73 were not completely legible and rhe said fa.t was not taken ;nto consideration by DRT-II, Delhi while passing the impugned order.

7. After considering all facts, the impuSned order dated 03.08.2026 is set aside and the present appeal is disposed of rh the liberty to the appellants being the defendants no. I and 2 to file fresh application for se€king condomtion of delay in filing the Writien Statement and if such application is filed lhen DRT-II, Delhi is also direcled to consider the argument and issues as raised by the cousel for ihe app€llanls and also mentioned hereinabove while passing appropriate order. The applicatio. be filed within seven days from ioday. It is also mad€ cled that DRT- II, Delhi while decidi.s such application shall not be influenced by any observation inade in the impusned order. (Dr. ,Iusti.c Sudhi. KuDar Jain Chairperson