MRS ANURAG GUPTA vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 4 September 2025

DEBTS RECOVERY T] LUCKNOW rAL o proceeding Ffice action len with e M. A. No.29/2013 04.09.2025 SL. No.02 This order is disposing M.A. No. 29 of 2013; it has been filed by theappli+bat for recall of the judgment pasbed by this Tribunal on 16.11.2010. This VIA hd$ been filed before the Tribunal on 16.d7.201 It is stated that ex-pa@ order 'was passed by the Tribunal wihouk headiHd the applicant of this MA. I have anxiously perusdd the +++ord It is stated that the applicant dame Hlknow on 06.06.2012 regarding the larder passed and immediately contacted his coun#NI who appeared in the O.A. No.76 of 20Hbl and applied for the copy in O.A. Nd.246 o+l4olo, but, due to strike the OA cbuld be filed before this Tribunal with soma defects and finally the case was admittedly on 12.06.2012. The applicant hds not slated as to how he came to the Hnowledge of the judgment in order to cohsideHdelay condonation; the date of kdowledy b1 and day to day explanation was reqbired. I have considered altern4tively A well admittedly the applicant had bakenHlloan from the applicant taken fr4m thHI,bank which was not paid and the 4pplic4ht had raised some grievance regarbing dbhent made by him which could not b+ adju Needless to say that it is a point which may be considered before tha recovery as well. As far as legal ground is cod##ned 11111 C; \-K

+ Conti. ... Page No.2 M. A. No.29/2013 04.09.2025 SL. No.02 Rule-5A RDB Act, read as: Any party which con§derin! aggrieved by an order made b! tht on account of some mist&e oJ apparent on the face of the rec Ard, obtain a review of the order hadt him, may apply for a review o+ tht the Tribunal which had made thb Ol No application for revibw sl made after the expiry of a pe\ days) from the date of the ordel application shall be entertaineh unIt accompanied by an affidavit \veri', application . Where a appears to Me Taba/ there is no sufficient ground fdr a shall reject the application bAt, wh- Tribunal is of opinion that the 4ppli\ review should be granted, it s same. I further considered ani which may be drawn from ord J of the cpc which stipulates thI be a sufficient cause shown bI for not appearing before this TI I find that this MA is dI merit. I further find that if, tI allowed any prejudice is not caused to the applicant. Accordingly , this Application is dismissed Let the file be consignl room . Order be uploaded on t+ website. '-\J ba// e the a& bunat t 'void MA going (dictate. (Pravas Ku„ngFSingh) Presiding Officer \tself juna/ \rror IS tO linst tr tO IIl be dkt,„„y \uch it is the }/1 that for the I ll0gy IIb 13 lust ticant me. any not be }OUS ;ord laI’s Mugish