MR GAJANAN VIJAYKUMAR MUDLIYAR vs KHAMGAON URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD on 17 October 2026

ORDER SHEET

Sr. No.04

**BEFORE HON'BLE INCHARGE P.O., CAMP AT DRT NAGPUR

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

(2^nd Floor, "B" Block, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440 006)

(Jurisdiction: 11 Districts of Vidarbha, Maharashtra)**

**MA No.59/2019**

**Gajanan Vijaykumar Mudliyar

Vs.

Khamgaon Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd & ors.**

**Present : Adv. Atul Joshi – Counsel for applicant.

None for respondent.**

**Date: 17.10.2026**

1. 1. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has passed an order dated 16.07.2025 for deciding MA No.59/2019 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. He further submitted that the MA No.59/2019 is pending for 23.11.2026 and same may be taken up today and same may be decided as per directions of the Hon'ble High Court.

2. 2. In view of above submissions of the applicant as well as in view of order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 16.07.2025, this case has been taken up today.

3. 3. This MA No.59/2019 has been moved by the applicant for setting aside the order dated 12.12.2018 whereby Misc. Application No.25/2017 in SA was dismissed in default.

4. 4. It is alleged in the MA that original applicant has filed MA for restoration of MA No.25/2017, which was dismissed in default on 12.12.2018.

5. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant was held up before the Hon'ble High Court and reached Tribunal after the order of dismissal was passed. The non-applicant Nos. 2 to 4 have not filed any reply on MA No.25/2017 despite various opportunities. The non-applicant Nos. 2

Gajanan

17.10.2026

to 4 filed pursis to adopt the reply of respondent No.1 and thereafter the matter was placed for hearing on 12.10.2018. On 12.10.2018 the Counsel for the applicant was suffering from viral fever and could not attend the proceeding. When the counsel for the applicant reached in Tribunal after attending the Hon'ble High Court, he came to know that order of dismissal was passed, which has caused prejudice to the applicant. The applicant should not be made suffer due to unintended default on the part of the counsel and prayed for setting aside order dated 12.12.2018 whereby MA No.25/2017 dismissed in default.

1. 6. The respondent No.1 filed reply of aforesaid application alleging therein that the counsel for the applicant has made bald and incorrect statement and contents of the present application are denied. The applicant has not supplied any document regarding his medical difficulty and further failed to give details of the matter listed before the Hon'ble High Court and details regarding Hon'ble Bench before whom the matter was listed. The applicant did not file record of the Hon'ble High Court even which is available on web site of the Hon'ble High Court. The applicant was not vigilant while conducting the matter and even counsel was remaining absent so many times and the applicant did not attend the Tribunal on 12.12.2018 and the applicant took almost 30 days to file present application for restoration of MA. The respondent No.1 denied other averments of the application and prayed for rejecting the MA of the applicant with heavy cost.

2. 7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties.

3. 8. It may be noted here that no reply of this MA has filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and they have adopted reply filed by respondent No.1 as per pursis dated 13.07.2018 (Exh.10).

4. 9. As per perusal of the record, the applicant has filed MA No.59/2019 for restoration of MA No.25/2017 within limitation of 30 days whereby the MA No.25/2017 was dismissed in default on 12.12.2018.

5. 10. It has claimed by the applicant that the MA was dismissed in default as the counsel for the applicant was busy in Hon'ble High Court and Januvaran 17.10.2018

when he reached in the Tribunal, he found that the MA has been dismissed in default and the circumstances was beyond control of the applicant's counsel. Further for the act of the counsel, the applicant cannot be made to suffer. Even otherwise if the order dated 12.12.2018 is set aside and the MA No.25/2017 is decided on merits, it would not cause any prejudice to the other side. Therefore, the applicant has set up sufficient ground for setting aside order dated 12.12.2018 whereby MA no.25/2017 was dismissed in default and same is liable to be restored.

11. In view of above submission, I pass the following order.