Vimalchand P. Kankaria vs Punjab National Bank on 16 January 2026

**JUDGMENT**

1. 1. The Applicant has filed the present Misc. Application seeking restoration of Appeal No.13/2014, which came to be dismissed for default / non-prosecution vide order dated 12/11/2025.

2. 2. The Respondent Bank has filed its reply to the present Misc. Application vide Exh.R/6 and has denied the statements and averments made by the Applicant.

3. 3. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the documentary evidence on record.

4. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that on the date when the Appeal was dismissed i.e. on 12/11/2025, the

Applicant or his Ld. Counsel could not remain present due to bona fide belief that the matter was not being taken up for hearing. He further submitted that the absence was neither intentional nor deliberate, but purely due to misunderstanding created by repeated non-taking up of the matter and incorrect reflection of name of the Counsel in the cause list. He also submitted that the Applicant has a strong and arguable case on merits and grave prejudice will be caused if the Appeal is not restored, considering the fact that the property in question is not a mortgaged asset.

1. 5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that the Appeal was pending since 2014 and the Appellant has been negligent in conducting the matter and though the Respondent Bank has submitted its written arguments, the Applicant failed to prosecute the matter. Therefore, the order of dismissal of Appeal is just and legal. As such, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the present Misc. Application.

**CONSIDERATION**

1. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.

2. 7. It is well settled that procedural rules are handmaids of justice and not meant to defeat substantive rights. Dismissal of a matter for default does not amount to adjudication on merits. The courts and tribunals are expected to adopt a liberal approach while dealing with restoration applications, particularly when no serious prejudice is caused to the opposite party.

3. 8. In the present case, the explanation furnished by the Applicant for non-appearance appears to be plausible and bona fide. There is no material on record to show that the Applicant deliberately intended to delay the proceedings or abuse the process of law.

4. 9. This Tribunal is of the considered view that ends of justice would be better served by restoring the Appeal and affording

the parties an opportunity to contest the matter on merits, rather than non-suing the appellant on a technical ground.

1. 10. At the same time, to balance the equities and to compensate the respondent for the inconvenience caused, restoration can be made subject to costs.

ORDER

- ➤ Accordingly, the Misc. Application is allowed, with cost.

- ➤ The impugned order dated 12/11/2025 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.13/2014, dismissing the matter for default is hereby set aside.

- ➤ Appeal No.13 of 2014 stands restored to its original number before this Tribunal.

- ➤ The Applicant shall appear before this Tribunal on 06/02/2026 without awaiting any further notice and shall diligently prosecute the matter.

- ➤ Restoration is made subject to payment of costs of ₹1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) payable to Gujarat DRT Bar Association, Ahmedabad within one week from today.

File of this Misc. Application be consigned to record.

Pronounced in open Tribunal on this 16^th day of January 2026.

**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-II, AHMEDABAD**

\*ykb