Lt Shri Manohar Wadhumal Mulchandani vs VASTU HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED on 22 April 2026

**ORDER**

1. 1. Ld. Counsel Mr. Mohit Gupta filed his Memo of Appearance on behalf of Respondent No.1 vide Exh.R/05. Let it be kept on record.

2. 2. Arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties on the Application for Condonation of Delay being M.A. No.22/2026 moved by Applicants for condoning delay of 180 days in filing above Securitisation Application have been heard.

3. 3. The present MA has been filed by Applicants for condonation of delay of 180 days in filing above Securitisation Application on the ground that the legal heirs and representatives of Applicant Nos.1 & 2 were not aware about any loan transaction entered into by deceased Applicants or the actions initiated by Respondent No.1 as legal heirs of deceased Applicants are not residing at the address of deceased Applicants. The Applicants have further stated that one of the friends of Applicant No.1

2MA 22 of 2026

informed Applicant Nos.1/1 & 1/2 that notice is affixed at the premises of the subject immovable property. Thereafter on inquiry, the Applicants came to know about the actions initiated by Respondent No.1. The Applicants immediately applied for certified copy of the application filed u/s 14 along with relevant papers on 27/01/2026, which were delivered to them on 29/01/2026. Therefore, there is a delay in filing the above Securitisation Application.

1. 4. 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.

2. 5. The Respondent FI 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 5 days and no day-to-day delay has been explained by Applicant in the Application and thus, the above Application deserves to be rejected.

3. 6. It appears from perusal of pleadings as also from the arguments of Ld. Counsel for both the parties that it has not seriously been disputed by Respondent FI 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 3MA 22 of 2026

Applicant 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.

1. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Application for Condonation of Delay is allowed. Delay of 180 days in filing Securitisation Application is hereby condoned.

2. 8. Registry is hereby directed to register and number the Securitisation Application and let the SA be fixed for hearing on 27/04/2026.

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

\*ykb