STATE BANK OF INDIA vs Narsingh on 14 June 2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,AURANGABAD

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

ORDER SHEET

[SBJ]

(MA No. 42/2024) Page 1 of 2

14.06.2024

Sr. No.12 MA No.42/2024

Classifi

cation

No. of

Exh.

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.42/2024

State Bank of India

..Applicant

Versus

Narsingh Dhondiba Battewad

..Respondents

Mrs. S. D. Tambat - Advocate for the applicant None for the Respondents.

The matter is taken through Hybrid.

1. In this matter this application has been moved for restoring the Original Application No.329/2018 filed against the sole defendant who expired in the year 2020.

2. The applicant bank has not made any efforts after filing of the original application and had not made any efforts for recovery so that they would have known that the borrower has expired.

3. Still the Court Commissioner was appointed. The concerned officer alongwith the Court Commissioner visited the sale defendant on 14th July, 2023 and came to know about the death of the borrower. Summons were handed over to the son of the sole defendant and the verification of the property was also done.

4. Despite having knowledge of the legal representative of the sole borrower, no steps were taken by them to bring the legal representatives on record. After giving several opportunities ultimately this Tribunal was left with no option but to dismiss the Original Application on 07th May, 2024. The said order is self- speaking. This Miscellaneous Application cannot be allowed.

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,AURANGABAD

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

ORDER SHEET

[SBJ]

(MA No. 42/2024) Page 2 of 2

5. It is submitted in the application Para-3 that the concern officer of the applicant bank due to heavy work load could not contact the advocate of the applicant and instruct about taking appropriate steps in the matter for filing application for bringing the legal representatives on record. Shere negligence of concerned officer with no aptitude towards recovery.

6. This is a specialised SARB Branch, all the officers are being doing the work of recovery only and once they came to know about the death on 14th July, 2023 when the concern officer was also present alongwith the Court Commissioner, there is no question of heavy work load for not contacting the advocate. The fault is lying with the officer concern. This Miscellaneous Application stands dismissed.

7. At the request of the counsel for the applicant I am not imposing any cost otherwise this Miscellaneous Application deserves heavy cost to be imposed.

8. In view of the above, I pass the following order.