/62/2026 of SANDEEP JAISWAL Vs ROHIT KUMAR SANTUKA on 25 June 2026

ORDER

25.06.2026

06. This Review Petition seeks the recall of our judgment dated 10.02.2026, whereby O.Ps.-auctioners’ W.P.(C) No.11224 of 2025 was allowed and the order of the DRAT negativing the Appeal filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was affirmed essentially on the ground that when the Parliament has enacted a limitation clause in Section 17 and also a clause for condonation of delay of a particular period, beyond that period, delay cannot be condoned at all. The judgment is also structured on the ground of culpable conduct of the Review

Petitioner, who had admittedly remained unrepresented despite service of Court notice.

2. Learned counsel, Mr. Bose, in his inevitable style of persuasion, submits that merits of the matter weigh in favour of his client, inasmuch as the account in question was shown to be nil liability because of appropriation of remainder of the auction money to the said account. That aspect having not been considered by the Court, i.e. error apparent on the face of the record for invoking the provisions of Order XLVII Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908 or the law akin to that, which would eminently warrant interference of this Court.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as we have construed the clause of condonation of delay enacted in Section 17 of 2002 Act as excluding the provision of inter alia Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore, the S.A. Dairy No.2519 of 2019 being hopelessly barred by time and being beyond the condonable limit of delay, was rightly dismissed.

3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the auction-buyer is justified in banking upon latest decision of the Apex Court in The Property Company (P) Ltd. vs. Rohinten Daddy Mazda, 2026 Live Law (SC) 19, wherein at Paragraph No.160, it has been observed as under:-

“iii. The provisions of the Act, 1963 (provisions that lay down a prescribed period of limitation as well as Sections 4 to 24 of the Act, 1963 respectively) would only apply to suits, applications or appeals, as the case may be, which are made under any law to 'courts' and not to those made before quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals, unless such quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals are specifically empowered in that regard.

iv. In Officer on Special Duty (supra), Prakash H. Jain (supra) and Om Prakash Section 5 of the Act, 1963 cannot be resorted to by statutory authorities, quasi- judicial (supra) respectively, this Court has unequivocally held that the power to extend time under authorities or bodies are deemed to be a court for certain limited or specified purposes, bodies or tribunals, unless expressly indicated. It has been clarified that when such such a legal fiction must not be extended beyond the purpose for which the fiction was created so as to confer powers under Section 5 of the Act, 1963 as well.”

3.2. Despite vociferous submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner, there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever offered by him for not honouring the Court notice and for not coming before the Court for participation in the proceedings. Already we have recorded a finding as to the culpable conduct of the Review Petitioner, in the judgment now put in Review at our hand. Counsel very fairly submits that his client happens to be a businessman, who has been in the field since last more than fifteen years. It is not that a member of oppressed classes or peasant or pagan or a person hailing from rural area is before us. One, who shows stank respect to the Court notice, cannot be permitted to invoke review jurisdiction in matter like this.

3.3. The amount deposited pursuant to the interim order of this Court by the Review Petitioner shall be appropriated to the outstanding amount, if any, in the account concerned. If there is any remainder, the same shall be remitted back to the Review Petitioner without brooking any delay.

3.4. On the passionate submissions of learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner, a further period of eight (08) weeks to be reckoned from this day is accorded to him for vacating the premises peaceably and deliver its possession to the auction-buyer with the mediation of the Bank, failing which the Jurisdictional police by using reasonable force shall remove the Petitioner and all his articles from the premises by adopting a normative process. In such an event, it is desirable to videograph entire exercise so that there shall be no scope for making false allegations against anyone by anyone. If the

Petitioner fails to deliver the possession of the property as directed, the Jurisdictional police can arrest and detain him to facilitate taking possession of the property. In the above circumstances, the Review Petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Krishna S. Dixit)

Judge

(Chittaranjan Dash)

Judge

Bijay/Sarbani Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 18:11:30 Signature Not Verified