MRS KRISHNABAI KISAN THAKUR vs M/S. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. OF INDIA LTD. on 10 September 2025

ORDER

(Delivered on 10th September, 2025)

1. The applicants by this application has claimed to condone the delay in filing Restoration Application for restoration of SA No.150/2016.

2. The averments made in the Application can be summarized as under:

The applicants are owners of the suit property. The defendant ARC initiated action under the provisions of SARFAESI Act in respect of the suit property though applicants have not taken loan from defendant ARC. Therefore, applicants challenged measures taken by defendant ARC by filing SA No.150/2016 against defendant ARC. However, the said Securitisation Application has been dismissed for default by this Court by Order dated 19th February, 2018.

3. The applicants had also filed Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court in the year 2016 which later on was withdrawn on 31st August, 2018.

4. The applicants had no knowledge that Securitisation Application has been dismissed for default and for the first time they came to know about the same when defendant ARC appeared and intimated in the Writ Petition proceeding. Therefore, the delay for filing Restoration Application took place. The applicants after obtaining certified copy of impugned order of dismissal of Securitisation Application filed the Restoration Application. Since there was delay in filing Restoration Application, the present application has been moved. They, therefore, pray that whatever delay (five months) caused may be condoned.

5. The learned Advocate appearing for defendant ARC orally contested the application. It is submitted that grounds for condonation of delay are not adequate. Therefore, the application may be rejected.

6. The following points arise for my determination and I record my findings as under:

Whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay?

What order?

[Kaur] (MA No.55/2010) Page 4 of 5

Findings:

Point No.1 – In the affirmative. Point No.2 – As per final order.

Reasons

7. Heard both parties. Perused the documents

8. Though, SA No.150/2016 was dismissed on 19th February, 2018, at that time Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court was pending which was withdrawn on 31st August, 2018 and the applicants were not knowing about dismissal order of Securitisation Application. Thereafter, the applicants obtained certified copy of impugned order and filed Restoration Application along with this delay condonation application on 10th September, 2018.

9. At this juncture, it is to be noted that delay condonation application should be dealt with liberal and pragmatic view. If this application is allowed, defendant ARC would get an opportunity to contest Restoration Application of SA No.150/2016. Therefore, in my opinion, relief as claimed by the applicant ought to be granted but subject to condition of payment of cost.

10. Resultantly in view of above observations, I answer these points accordingly and pass the following order:

ORDER

(A) The Application is allowed. (B) The delay caused in filing Restoration Application is hereby condoned subject to cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to be paid by the applicants to Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within the period of three weeks from the date of this order. (C) After payment of cost, Restoration Application be registered.

Pronounced in open Court

Place : Pune Date: 10.09.2025

Sd/- (Dilip G Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune