Anilkumar Hariram Masand vs REPCO HOME FINANCE LIMITED on 17 January 2026

1. 1. Arguments of Ld. Counsels for both the parties on the Application for Condonation of Delay being M.A. No.84/2025 moved by Applicant for condoning delay of 11 days in filing above Securitisation Application have been heard.

2. 2. The present application has been filed by the Applicant seeking Condonation of Delay of 11 days on 26/12/2025 stating that the possession notice was issued on 12/10/2025. The Applicant had purchased the disputed property in auction held by Respondent No.2 on 28/01/2025. The auction sale concluded in favour of the Applicant for an amount of Rs.5,35,000/-. Accordingly, the Sale Certificate dated 03/02/2025 was issued in favour of the Applicant and Respondent No.2

2MA 84 of 2025

also executed Sale Deed dated 15/02/2025 in favour of the Applicant, which was duly registered with the concerned Office of Sub-Registrar. The Applicant stays at Amravati, Maharashtra, which is his native place and visits Surat City occasionally after having purchased the residential property in question.

1. 3. It is the case of the Applicant that when the Applicant visited Surat on 02/12/2025, he found notice dated 12/10/2025 stuck outside his house mentioning that physical possession of his property has been taken over by Respondent no.1. The Applicant also found seal affixed on the door of the property by Respondent No.1. Therefore, the Applicant immediately located the Advocate at Ahmedabad to approach this Tribunal and filed present SA vide Diary No.2443/2025 on 16/12/2025. The Applicant has further stated that the Delay in filing the application is neither deliberate nor intentional, but has occurred due to bona fide reasons and circumstances beyond the control of Applicant. If the delay in filing the Securitization Application is not condoned, the Applicant will suffer irreparable loss and grave prejudice, whereas no hardship or injury will be caused to the Respondent if the delay is condoned.

2. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents, though have not filed any reply to the present Miscellaneous Application, opposed the application for Condonation of Delay on the ground that the reasons mentioned in the application are false and neither legal nor proper nor sufficient and no sufficient cause has been shown for Condonation of Delay of 11 days and no day to day delay has been explained by Applicant in his application and thus, the application deserves to be rejected.

3. 5. It has been held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in LPA No.224/2020 in the case of Manglesh Champaklal Gandhi that this Tribunal has discretion to entertain Application u/s 17(1) of SARFAESI Act beyond 3MA 84 of 2025

the period of 45 days as provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act would apply and such discretion has to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances on the aspect of sufficient cause to condone the delay or not. The reasons as explained by Applicant in his Application for Condonation of Delay appear to be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the above case and thus, the Application for Condonation of Delay deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.

1. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Application for Condonation of Delay is allowed. Delay of 11 days in filing Securitisation Application is hereby condoned.

2. 7. Registry is hereby directed to register and number the Securitisation Application.

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

\*ykb