KATHIRIYA AJAY RATILAL vs HDFC BANK on 21 April 2026

**ORDER**

1. 1. Arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties on the Application for Condonation of Delay being M.A. No.20/2023 moved by Applicants for condoning delay of 10 days in filing above Securitisation Application as well as on the application for amendment being IA No.2407/2023 (Exh.A/05) have been heard.

2. 2. The present Miscellaneous Application No.20/2023 has been filed by the Applicants for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing Securitization Application on 24.05.2023 on the ground that the Applicants were unable to approach this Tribunal due to family issues and that the Applicants were not having sufficient funds to meet with the expenses for litigation.

3. 3. The Applicants have further stated that the delay is not huge and properly explained. It is further contended that delay, if any, is not intentional and liberal approach in condoning delay should be adopted and delay should be condoned in filing above Securitisation Application.

2MA 20 of 2023

1. 4. The Respondent Bank has opposed the above Application for Condonation of Delay on the ground that the reasons mentioned in the Application for Condonation of Delay are false and neither legal nor proper nor sufficient and no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay of 10 days and no day-to-day delay has been explained by Applicants in the Application and thus, the above Application deserves to be rejected.

2. 5. It appears from perusal of pleadings and evidence led by both the parties as also from the arguments of Ld. Counsel for both the parties that it has not seriously been disputed by Respondent Bank that some time could have been consumed in taking legal action. 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 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 Applicants in the 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.

3. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Application for Condonation of Delay is allowed. Delay of 10 days in filing Securitisation Application is hereby condoned.

4. 7. During the pendency of the present MA, the Applicants have also filed I.A.No.2407/2023 (Exh.A/05) seeking to incorporate the grounds for challenging order dated 05.06.2023 passed by Ld. ACJM Surat u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Ld. Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the proposed amendment is necessary for complete adjudication of the present case and hence, the same may be allowed.

5. 8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that she has no objection if the proposed amendment is allowed subject to her right to file reply to the amended Securitization Application.

6. 9. In view of the fact that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and is not likely to change the nature or character of the proceedings, I.A.No.2407/2023 (Exh.A/05) is allowed.

3MA 20 of 2023

1. 10. Registry is hereby directed to register and number the Securitisation Application.

2. 11. The Applicants are directed to file amended SA within a period of one week with an advance copy to Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.

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

\*Slj