M/s SATYAVAMA VERMI COMPOST AND OTHERS vs INDIAN BANK on 8 September 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 08.09.2022 passed by this Tribunal in OA 171/2020. Alongwith present MA, the applicants have also filed Limitation Petition by way of IA 40/2023 to condone the delay.

2. On the point of limitation it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicants had no knowledge about the Original Application filed by Bank and also no any notice was served upon the applicant with regard to abovesaid OA. The applicant came to know about the order/judgment dated 08.09.2022 on 17.11.2022. Accordingly, the applicant applied before this Tribunal for the certified copy of the judgment on the same day i.e. 17.11.2022 which was delivered to the applicants on 09.12.2022. Hence, the present MA has been filed on 13.01.2023. It is prayed that the delay may be condoned.

3. It is submitted by the Id. Counsel for the applicant that the Bank filed OA 171/2020 before this Tribunal in which no notices was served upon applicant. No opportunity has been given to applicant to contest the case. The applicant has goods case hence, opportunity may be granted to contest the case. If not provided there would be irreparable a&gW

DRT, PATN A

loss to applicant, despite having merit in the favour of applicant. The applicant came to know about the order/judgment dated 08.09.2022 on 17.11.2022. Accordingly, the applicant applied before this Tribunal for the certified copy of the judgment on the same day i.e. 17.11.2022 which was delivered to the applicants on 09.12.2022.

4. Heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant and went through the record.

5. On perusal of record it appears that the Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal vide order dated 23.12.2025 has reported that the applicant has neither filed service report of delivery of summons upon respondent nor taken fresh steps despite several opportunity. Furthermore, vide order dated 19.02.2026 passed by this Tribunal; the applicant was directed to show cause that why the present MA should not be dismissed for non-prosecution. But the applicant did not file reply to the show cause in the matter.

6. The present MA has been filed by the applicant for recalling the aside ex-parte judgment/order dated 08.09.2022 passed by this Tribunal in OA 171/2020 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. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona pde 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 the sufficient cause for delay has not been qJ@vw DRT, PATN A

explained nor explained how he came to know about the judgment dated 08.09.2022 on 17.11.2022.

9. However, record of the original application shows that the summons was sent to the defendants/borrowers on 29-10-2020 by Registered/Speed post. Apart from this summons was also published in the newspaper “Hindustan Times" and “Hindustan" on 03.02.2021 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 08.09.2022 passed in O.A. 171/2020, 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. £ [Kaushalendra Yadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna Date : 08.09.2026