PUNDLIK VITHOBA PATIL DIED vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 25 July 2025

JUDGMENT

(25/07/2025)

01. This Miscellaneous Application (MA Diary No.49/ 2025) has filed by the applicants for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 23/07/2024 passed by learned In-charge Presiding Officer, DRT, Aurangabad.

02. Alongwith the Miscellaneous Application, an application for condonation of delay has also filed by the applicants vide IA (Diary) No. 46/2025 on the [Ambadas]

grounds that they had no knowledge of passing ex-parte decree against them. They were served and asked to appear in DRT, Aurangabad on 09/12/2024. Thereafter they approached with their advocate Mr. Pramod Dhorde who then applied for getting certified copy on 16/12/2024 and received certified copy on 03/01/2025, and thereafter making financial provisions, they filed this Miscellaneous Application. The applicants were not served the notice in OA No. 98/2021 till passing of impugned ex-parte decree/recovery certificate dated 23/07/2024. The defendant Dnyaneshwar Pundlik Patil was suffering from oral Cancer and he got operated in Dr. Deshmukh Hospital on 15/10/2024. The defendant No.1 Pundlik Vithoba Patil was died and his legal representatives were not brought on record and without bringing them on record, ex-parte decree is null and void and liable to be set aside. There is no deliberate delay in [Ambadas]

filing the present application for condonation of delay of 165 days in filing the present MA.

03. The reply of aforesaid application filed by the respondent bank that the Miscellaneous Application No. 49/2025 is not within limitation and same is liable to be dismissed on this ground. The notices were duly served to Pundlik Patil who was already impleaded in the Original Application. Mr. Dhorde appeared on behalf of Pundalik Patil and filed Vakalatnama on 29/11/2021, and thereafter appeared continuously in the OA, and the applicants having full knowledge of the matter as well as notices were duly served to defendants, as applicants residing in same place. It was submitted that advocate of the applicant Mr. Dhorde himself informed about the death of Pundalik Vithoba Patil when matter was pending before Hon’ble DRT, on 21/09/2022, and thereafter advocate of the respondent advocate requested to give name of LR’s of Pundlik Patil. Thereafter, the officers of [Ambadas]

the bank obtained the names of the legal Heirs from the persons available at the house of Pundlik Patil, and then filed application for impleading LR’s of deceased defendant No. 1 and notice to LR’s of Pundlik Patil were issued on 21/6/2023, and notices were duly serve d and recovery certificate has been issued in OA No. 98/2021 against the applicants and other LR’s of original defendants No.1 and 2. Even the present applicants have no locus-standi to challenge order dated 23/7/2024 and there are no sufficient grounds for condonation of delay of 165 days in filing the present MA.

04. I have heard both the counsel for parties on this application and gone through the material on record thoroughly and carefully.

05. Before proceeding further, it may be noted here that the present respondent bank filed OA No. 98/2021 on 25/1/2021 against defendant No.1 Mr.

[Ambadas]

Pundlik V. Patil and defendant No. 2 Mr. Kisan Arjun Patil.

06. Mr. Pramod Dhorde advocate appeared on behalf of defendant 1 and filed his Vakalatnama on 29/11/2021, and thereafter continuously appeared on behalf of the defendants. The defendant No. 1 Mr. Pundlik Patil died on 05/9/2022 and this fact was informed to the Tribunal by advocate Mr. Pramod Dhorde and thereafter the application for impleading LR of deceased defendant No.1 moved by the bank and that was allowed and notices to LR’s of defendant No. 1 were duly served but they did not appear and proceeded ex- parte in the OA.

07. The defendant No. 2 Kisan Arjun Patil was also died during the pendency of OA No. 98/2021, and his legal representatives were also brought on record. Now the present applicants claiming LR’s of defendant No.1 Pundalik Vithoba Patil have filed present MA

[Ambadas]

alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing MA for setting aside the recovery certificate dated 23/07/2024 passed against the LR’s or original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (Now died). The MA has been filed on 08/01/2025. There is no ground for condonation of delay as it is alleged in the application that Dnyaneshwar Pundlik Patil was suffering from Cancer and he was operated, but his medical record has not been produced on record. Moreso, the applicants have failed to prove sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Further, the LR’s of defendant No.1 Pundalik Patil had been impleaded in OA No 98/2021 as reflected in judgment dated 23/07/2024. This judgment has been passed ex-parte after impleading LR’s of original defendant No.1 Pundlik Patil who died on 05/09/2022. Now in application the applicants have alleged more LR’s, but that fact has not been supported by any document when five LR’s of defendant No. 1 Pundlik Patil have already been [Ambadas]

impleaded during the pendency of OA. This MA for setting aside the judgment dated 23/07/2024 has been moved with intention only to stall or stop recovery proceedings already pending with Recovery Officer vide RC No. 272/2024. Further there are no sufficient grounds for condonation of this inordinate delay in filing the present MA and this MA(Diary) No. 49/2025 is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitations.

08. Even otherwise on merits, there are no grounds for setting aside ex-parte judgment dated 23/07/2024 as legal heirs of defendant No.1 were impleaded and counsel for original defendant No.1 (Now deceased) was appearing and he even intimated regarding death of this defendant and thereafter application for impleading LR’s was filed by bank and LR’s were impleaded. Even notices were served to LR’s, but they did not turn up and ultimately ex-parte judgment in OA No.98/2021 was passed on 23/07/2024.

[Ambadas]

Therefore, even MA (Diary) No. 49/2025 is not sustainable and same is liable to be dismissed.

09. In view of the above observations, I pass the following order.

ORDER

A. The MA Diary No. 49/2025 is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation. B. IA Diary No. 46/2025 for condonation of delay is also dismissed. C. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any stands disposed of in terms of this order. D. Consign the file to the Record Room after due compliance.

Announced in open court

(Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Date: 25/07/2025

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal Aurangabad.