MR ATAUR RAHMAN ALIAS HIRAJEE vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA on 11 July 2025

ORDER

1. This Misc. applicationhasbeenfiled under section 22(2) (g) & (h) of RDBAct by the applicant for restoration of SARFAESIApplication bearing no. SA 223/2017 which was dismissed for default on 19.07.2022. During the pendencyof above said Misc. application, the applicant hasalsofiled Limitation Petition by way of IA 10/2023 for condonationof delayin filing of restoration petition.

2. The respondent Bankappearedinto matter through his Counselby filing Vakalatnamaon 06.02.2023but did not file reply to the Misc. Applicationaswell aslimitation petition.

3. On the point of limitation it has been submitted by the Id. Counsel of applicant that the applicant is suffering from Cancerand taking his treatment at Muzaffarpur therefore, he could not file present MA within time.

4. It has been pleaded by the Id. Counsel of applicant that the applicant is suffering from Cancer and taking treatment at Muzaffarpur which always causes unwanted disturbance to the applicant. Hence,the applicant could not make pairvee in the case and the case was dismissed for default on 19.07.2022. The applicant will suffer irreparable loss if the SARFAESIApplication is DRT, PATNA

MA 03/2023 (0) not restored. Hence, the present MA may be allowed and SA 223/2017 be restored to its original number.

5. Although the respondent didn't filed the reply against the MA but It is orally submitted by the respondent bank that earlier the said SA was dismissed for default on 17.05.2018. Thereafter, the conducting counsel had filed MA 62/2018 for restoration of SA 223/2017 which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2020. After restoration the applicant was required to file rejoinder to the SA as the counter affidavit was already filed by the Bank on 22.03.2018. But the applicant did not file the same and the case lingering since long. Ld.Counselof the applicant was also not pursuing the matter. Assuch the SA was again dismissed for default. The illness of the applicant will not be a valid excuse for non filing of rejoinder. The counsel was required to act, appear and plead in the matter.

6. Considered the submission of the applicant and the affidavit filed in support of the application.

7. The applicant of the present casehas prayed for the restoration of SA 223/2017 which was dismissed for default on 19.07.2022. It has been pleaded that due to illness of applicant he could not attend the Court on 19.07.2022therefore, dismisseddue to non-prosecution.

8. There is no explanation for not attending the case by the present counsel Sh. Nand Kishore Singh who was conducting counsel of SA as well as counsel of MA 62/2018 which was earlier filed for restoration of same SA on dismissed for default on 17.05.2018. So the plea regarding illness of applicant cannot be considered as the Vaklatnama was executed by the applicant to appear in the matter but the counsel remains absent not only on 19.07.2022 but also on several previous dates.

9. In view of the above discussionalthough there is no sufficient ground to condone the delay and to allow this application. , however, present MA 03/2023 is allowed in order to afford one more chance of hearing on merits, subject to payment of Rs. 2000/- as cost payable to DRT Litigants Welfare Fund,in not more than 15 days. Letthe order be uploaded on the website of the tribunal. " ~ ~/,~~\-h [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna Date: 11.07.2025