Ritesh Kumar Jha vs BANK OF BARODA on 28 January 2026

ORDER

1. This Misc. Application has been filed by applicant under section 22 (G), (h) of the RDB Act for recalling the ex-parte judgment/order dated 18.09.2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA 01/2023. Alongwith present MA, the applicants have also filed Limitation Petition by way of IA 77/2025 to condone the delay.

2. On the point of limitation it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicants that no notice was legally and validly sent/delivered on the actual residing place/address of the applicant. The applicant came to know a few days back when the order/judgment and certificate dated 18.09.2024 passed in the matter was sent by this Tribunal. On receipt of the above judgment/order, the applicant contacted counsel and gathered information regarding the case. Thereafter, applied before this Tribunal for the certified copy of the judgment on 14.11.2024 and the same was delivered to the applicants on 02.12.2024. Accordingly, this MA has been filed on 31.12.2024. h / b\\

DRT, PATN A

3. It is submitted by the Id. Counsel for the applicant that the applicants have availed SRTO Loan facility to the tune of Rs.24 lacs from the respondent Bank under CGTMSE Scheme. As per terms of the sanctioned letter issued by the bank, the agreed interest was 10.60% and overdue additional interest of 2% monthly rest per annum but the interest has been charged at the higher side. The EMI of the loan was being paid by the borrower regularly but due sudden pandemic of Covid-19, the account became irregular and further declared as NPA on 25.02.2022. Further, the Bank filed OA 01/2023 before this Tribunal in which notices were issued to the defendants and also paper publication of notices were made but the said notices have never ever been legally and validly sent/delivered on the actual residing place/address of the applicant. The applicant is residing in a very interior village where no post master is posted in the local post office and no newspaper is available therefore, the applicant could not know about the notices issued in the matter. The applicant could know the said judgment a few days back when the above said judgment was communicated to the applicants by this Tribunal.

4. On the contrary, Id. Counsel of respondent Bank submits that the OA 01/2023 was filed by the Bank for the recovery of a sum of Rs.30,01,182/- with further interest. In the said matter notices were issued to the defendants on 23.01.2023 by registered/speed post and also by way of paper publication notice made on 05.09.2023 in “Dainik Jagran” but none of the defendants chose to appear in the matter to contest the case. Hence, the matter proceeded ex-parte against defendants. Accordingly, judgment and certificate was issued on 18.09.2024 for the recovery of the claim amount. Further, recovery proceedings were initiated by the Ld. Recovery Officer. To delay the recovery process, present MA has been filed by the applicant.

5. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and went through the record.

6. The present MA has been filed by the applicant for recalling the aside ex-parte judgment/order dated 18.09.2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA 01/2023 with the contention that no notice was served/delivered to the applicants.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. Versus The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in [2013] 14 SCC 811 has held as under- The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. LA

DRT, PATNA

In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.

8. Even on perusal of the limitation petition filed by the M. applicant, it appears that sufficient cause for delay has not been explained.

9. However, record of the original application shows that the summons was sent to the defendants/borrowers on 23-1-2023 by Registered/Speed post. Apart from this summons was also published in the newspaper “Dainik Jagaran" on 05.09.2023 to appear and contest the case but none of the defendants appeared in the matter despite several opportunities.

10. As it has not been alleged by the applicant that the address mentioned on the summons was not correct and the address mentioned in the original application has also not been denied by the applicant. The postal dispatch of the summons along with the copies shall be presumed to be served in due course as required under section 27 of the General clauses Act. Similar presumption has to be drawn regarding the true and free copy issued by the Tribunal after the judgment in the original application. Again it is important to mention that there is nothing on record to contradict the above presumption.

11. However in order to afford an opportunity to contest the case on merits the application may be allowed subject to deposit of the certificate amount without interest imposed thereunder within seven 15 days in concerned RP Case alongwith the security for the for the interest component and costs, to the satisfaction of concerned Recovery officer.

ORDER

The instant M.A. is disposed of in terms of the para 11 of this order. In case the applicant makes payment in terms of aforesaid Para- 11, the judgment and certificate date 18.09.2024 passed in U, DRT. PATNA

MA 33/2025 [01 O.A.01/2023, shall stand set aside and the O.A. shall be restored to its original number. A copy of this order is given to the parties as well as to the Ld. Recovery Officer. The order signed. dated and pronounced in open court today. Consign the record. [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna Date : 28.01.2026