Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
MRS APARNA BARIWAL AND ANR vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA on 15 July 2025
Exh-8
1
Diary No.538-2024
**DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, AHMEDABAD
(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY, PRESIDING OFFICER)**
**MISC. APPLICATION No. 43 OF 2025**
**IN**
**DIARY No.538 OF 2024**
Date of Order :-15/07/2025
Mrs. Aparna Bariwal
and another
** ... Applicants**
**Versus**
Central Bank of India
** ...Respondent**
**Appearance:**
Mr. Mangal Dev Bariwal, Applicant – Party in Person Ld. Counsel Mr. S.C. Bhatt for the Respondent
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER**
1. 1. The Applicants have filed the present Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay in filing Chamber Appeal against the order dated 16/11/2024 passed by Ld. Registrar declining registration of the proposed MA in view of the fact that objections raised by the Registry have not been removed by the Applicants. .
2. 2. I have heard Mr. Mangal Dev Bariwal – Applicant – party in person and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent and perused the record.
1. 3. As against this, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has filed his preliminary objections dated 07/07/2025 on maintainability of Miscellaneous Application filed by the Respondent Bank. It has been contended by the Respondent that no single reason is given in the MA explaining delay caused in filing chamber appeal. The Applicants have also not mentioned the days of delay and when the limitation starts for filing Chamber Appeal, when the limitation expired and from which date, the delay was calculated and how many days of delay has occurred in filing Chamber Appeal. Hence, the Application may be dismissed with cost.
2. 4. Moreover, in this context, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of Rule 5 of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, which read as under:
***"5. Presentation and scrutiny of applications. –***
*(1) The Registrar, or, as the case may be, the officer authorized by him, shall endorse on every application the date on which it is presented or deemed to have been presented under rule 4 and shall sign endorsement.*
*(2) If on scrutiny, the application is found to be in order, it shall be duly registered and given a serial number.*
*(2A) After registration of the application under sub-rule (2), the Tribunal shall issue summons to the defendants in Form IV.*
*(3) If the application, on scrutiny, is found to be defective and the defect noticed is formal in nature, the Registrar may allow the party to rectify the same in his presence and if the said defect is not formal in nature, the Registrar, may allow the applicant such time to rectify the defect as he may deem fit.*
*(4) If the concerned applicant fails to rectify the defect within the time allowed in sub rule (3), the Registrar may by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, decline to register the application.*
*(5) An appeal against the order of the Registrar under sub-rule (4) shall be made within 15 days of the making of such order to the Presiding Officer concerned in chamber whose decision thereon shall be final."*
1. 5. As per aforesaid Rule 5(5) of the DRT Procedure Rules, the Applicants ought to have preferred Chamber Appeal within 15 days before this Tribunal against the impugned order dated 16/11/2024. However, the Applicants have stated that the Authorised Officer of the Respondent Bank did not release the property of Mrs. Aparna Bariwal even after 30 days of the order passed by this Tribunal on 28.08.2023 in SA No.97/2023. Therefore, the Applicants want to file MA for implementation of the order passed by this Tribunal in SA 97/2023. The Applicants have further stated that having cleared all objections raised by registry within prescribed time limit. They have also stated that the application of the Applicants could not be heard for more than 30 days due to non-availability of Presiding Officer of DRT-2.
2. 6. It is settled legal position that liberal approach should be adopted by Courts and delay should be condoned in filing applications/appeals. Considering the reasons assigned by the Applicants for delay in filing chamber appeal appear to be justifiable and therefore in view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat dated 28.06.2023 in **LPA**
**No.224/2020 in the case of Aditya Birla Finance Limited Vs. Manglesh Champaklal Gandhi & Ors.,**
this Tribunal is of the opinion that the delay caused in filing chamber appeal deserves to be condoned.
1. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay in filing chamber appeal is hereby condoned.
2. 8. Registry is hereby directed to register and number the chamber appeal.
**(Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay) Presiding Officer DRT-II, Ahmedabad**
9. \*ykb\*