Rajubhai Rameshbhai Chauhan vs BANK OF BARODA on 7 October 2026

**ORDER**

1. 1. The Applicant has filed the present Misc. Application for Condonation of Delay of 862 days in filing Securitization Application.

2. 2. I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

3. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that due to ill advice given by the Advocate concerned, the Applicant preferred SCA No.6190 of 2019, SCA No. 15299 of 2019, SCA No. 19390 of 2022 and SCA No. 8081 of 2023 before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat against various measures taken by the Respondent Bank under SARFAESI Act. The last SCA preferred by the Applicant was withdrawn by Ld. Counsel for the Applicant on 04/05/2023 before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The Applicant has filed the present Securitization Application u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act before this Tribunal on 26/07/2023. He further submitted that the auction of the disputed property

was conducted by the Respondent Bank on 29/01/2021 and considering the said date for the purpose of last cause of action, there is a delay of 862 days in filing the present Securitization Application. He further submitted that the Applicant has got sufficient and good cause for condoning the delay occasioned due to aforesaid bona fide reasons beyond control of the Applicant. He also submitted that it is a well settled legal position that no litigant should be put to suffer for the lapse of his Counsel or for the wrong legal advice given by the Counsel. The Court should adopt pragmatic approach and meritorious cases cannot be thrown on sole ground of delay. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the rights of the other parties if the delay is condoned and the matter is decided on merit.

1. 4. The Respondent has filed its reply to the present Misc. Application vide Ex.R/6 and denied the statements and averments made by the Applicant therein. It has further contended that the present application has been filed by the Applicant with an ulterior motive and to obstruct the recovery process initiated by the Respondent Bank. The application to condone the delay does not explain delay of each date. The application to condone delay cannot be filed mechanically, without substantiating reasons in support of the same. The present application filed by the Applicant is totally frivolous and vexatious and hence, it deserves to be dismissed.

2. 5. It appears on perusal of record that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has passed following orders in various Special Civil Applications filed by the Applicant from time to time challenging measures taken by the Respondent Bank under SARFAESI Act.

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>Sr. No.</th> <th>SCA No</th> <th>Date of Order</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>6190/2019</td> <td>30.04.2019</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>15299/2019</td> <td>16.09.2016</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>19390/2022</td> <td>16.11.2022</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>8081/2023</td> <td>04.05.2023</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

1. 6. It becomes evident from the order dated 30/04/2019 passed in SCA No.6190/2019 that the petition was dismissed as withdrawn while granting permission to the Applicant to approach DRT by filing appropriate proceedings. Similarly the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat repeatedly granted liberty/permission to the Applicant to approach DRT for redressal of his grievances while disposing of SCA No.15299/2019 and SCA No.19390/2022. The Applicant continued to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat against successive measures of the Respondent Bank under SARFAESI Act. It is surprising that the Applicant at no point of time chose to approach the appropriate forum i.e. DRT u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act after withdrawing the petition filed before Hon'ble High Court and withdrawing the same. Lastly, the Applicant thought it fit to approach this Tribunal after withdrawing SCA No.8081/2023 vide order dated 04/05/2023.

2. 7. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant was under bona fide belief and had raised issues of the present Securitization Application in the proceedings before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. However, on account of improper legal advice from concerned Advocate, the Applicant continued to approach the Hon'ble High Court in wrong proceedings. Therefore, the period consumed by the Applicant in approaching a wrong forum under bona fide belief is required to be exempted as provided u/s 14 of Limitation Act, 1963.

3. 8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that law comes to the help of those who are vigilant and not to those who sleep over their rights for a long period. In the present case, the Applicant adopted a very casual, callous and negligent approach towards measures taken by the Respondent Bank. Hence, he does not deserve any mercy

and indulgence of this Tribunal by condoning delay. According to him, in the present case, there is huge delay of 910 days, which is not properly explained by the Applicant. Therefore, he requested to dismiss the present application for condoning delay with cost.

1. 9. It is true that Section 14 of the Limitation Act allows exclusion of the period spent in bona fide prosecution before wrong forum while calculating limitation, which means that the prior proceedings must have been prosecuted by the Applicant with due diligence and in good faith. "Good Faith" is defined in Section 2(h) of the Limitation Act 1963, which provides that noting shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not with due care and attention. The standard is therefore demanding – honesty alone does not suffice; the litigant must have acted with due care and attention in choosing and pursuing the earlier forum.

2. 10. In the present case, in spite of relegation of the Applicant to DRT by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat from time to time, the Applicant did not choose to approach the DRT and persisted to go to Hon'ble High Court against each measure of the Respondent Bank under SARFAESI Act. Hence, it can be said to be the choice of the Applicant to approach the wrong forum, without due care. As such, the Applicant is fully responsible for the negligence, laches or inaction and hence, he cannot claim the benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act. Section 14 does not apply where the litigant had concurrent remedies and he elects the one and fails there. In the present case, the Applicant voluntarily elected the jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat despite being relegated to DRT from time to time by the same Hon'ble forum. The earlier petitions filed by the Applicant before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat were withdrawn or abandoned by him on jurisdictional ground only and therefore, he or his Counsel were well aware that DRT has jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised by the

Applicant against measures taken by the Respondent Bank under SARFAESI Act.

1. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the time spent by the Applicant before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat cannot be said to be in good faith throughout and hence, he cannot be extended the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

2. 12. In the above circumstances, it is required to be noted that the SARFAESI Act and Recovery measures taken by the Bank under the said Act are intended to be expeditious and time-bound. This Tribunal is of the opinion that the statutory time provided in Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act cannot be extended or ignored unless the Statute itself permits condonation. There is no express power of this Tribunal in Section 17 for condoning delay. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has vehemently argued that the Applicant has a good meritorious case in his favour and he is likely to succeed in the SA. However, this Tribunal is not in a position to accept the said argument as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and other Hon'ble High Courts/ DRATs have settled the legal position on the question of condoning delay in filing the SA u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act and have held from time to time that merits alone cannot justify the Condonation of Delay. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the strong merits alone are legally irrelevant for condoning a huge delay of 862 days in filing SA. It may be further observed that merits can supplement, but cannot replace the legally acceptable explanation for delay.

3. 13. This Tribunal is supported in its aforesaid view by the observations of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat made in the case of **Gitaben Manharlal Pujara vs. Haresh Bipinchandra Pathak & Anr. 1999(1) GCD 16 (Guj)**. It has been held therein as under:

*"The appeal has to be presented by the aggrieved party within the prescribed period of limitation and in case where it is not*

*presented within limitation, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he/she/it had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within prescribed period of the limitation, so the satisfaction of the Court on the facts set forth in the application supported by the affidavit that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in the prescribed period of limitation is sine qua non for condonation of delay which has been caused in filing of the appeal. Delay caused in filing of appeal cannot be condoned more so when there is long delay of 576 days merely on sympathies or on consideration of economic constraints and financial difficulties of the applicant-appellant or merely on asking or desire. In the absence of specific, definite and clear facts pleaded in application and supported by the affidavit by which the applicant was prevented from filing of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and how he/she/it has overcome to constraints and conditions it is difficult for the Court to accept the case of the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay caused in preferring the appeal. While considering application of the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay caused in preferring the appeal the Court has to keep in mind also that by not preferring the appeal by the aggrieved party in limitation a valuable right is accrued to the opposite party. more so when delay is of considerable long period. Each day delay cause in preferring appeal may not be required to be explained. But where on the facts set forth in the application supported by the affidavit the Court is satisfied that the applicant-appellant had no cause muchless sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within prescribed period of limitation it may not condone the delay caused in preferring the appeal. The explanation for the delay must be reasonable or satisfactory. Before condoning the delay caused in preferring the appeal the Court, has to record its satisfaction that the explanation for delay furnished by the litigant is either reasonable or satisfactory."*

1. 14. It is pertinent to note that the only reason for delay of 862 days assigned by the Applicant is that he bona fide chose a wrong forum for pursuing his remedy before Hon'ble High Court and therefore unable to file SA within the prescribed time limit. In view of aforesaid discussion, this is certainly not a satisfactory explanation for such a huge delay. The reason for delay is not such on which basis it can be condoned.

2. 15. In these facts and circumstances, allowing the Condonation of Delay application of Applicant does not appear to be legally justified.

16. In considered view of this Tribunal, in this case the justification and reasons given to condone the delay of 862 days in filing the SA do not appear to be satisfactorily and legally justified. Accordingly, this Delay Condonation application deserves to be rejected on merit. Hence, the following order is passed:

**ORDER**

- ➤ Delay Condonation Application being M.A. No.41 of 2023 for delay in filing SA is hereby rejected.

- File be consigned to record.

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

Nishita