Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
K V Ramesh Raju vs INDIAN BANK on 22 January 2026
1MA 157 of 2023 in OA 32 of 2014
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM
Present :- SHRI KRISHNA GOPAL DWIVEDI,
PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated 22<sup>nd</sup> January, 2026
MA No.157/2023 in OA 32/2014
Between
1. 1. M/s. Sri Venkateswara Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietrix, K. Santhi Lakshmi, D.No. 50-83-3/2/8, 3<sup>rd</sup> Floor, Kings Court, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam
2. 2. Smt. K. Santhi Lakshmi, D.No. D.No. 50-83-3/2/8, 3<sup>rd</sup> Floor, Kings Court, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam
3. 3. Sri K.V. Ramesh Raju, S/o. Ramamurthi Raju, D.No. 50-83-3/2/8, 3<sup>rd</sup> Floor, Kings Court, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam (Died)
..... Petitioners /Defendants
And
Indian Bank, Dabagardens Branch, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Branch Manager
..... Applicant Bank/ Respondent
Ld Counsel for Petitioners
- Sri S.S.N Raju
Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank
- Sri S.S.Sharma
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**
In the above MA the petitioner has prayed to condone the delay of 1385 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte order dt.04.12.2019 that were passed against the defendants 1 and 2 to contest the OA in the interest of justice.
In counter the OP bank has prayed to dismiss the petition since they failed to explain day to day delay in filing the present petition.
As per MA the husband of 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant died on 01.08.2020, who had availed the loan from the OP bank. This petitioner received the demand notice by the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT and petitioner applied for certified copy of OA and it came in her knowledge that during the Covid-19 the OA was allowed. As per docket order D1 and D2 filed written statement and case was fixed for evidence on 13.08.2019. The applicant adduced evidence and case was posted for defendants evidence on 14.10.2019 and on that day this petitioner evidence was closed. The Registry has not communicated the final orders to the petitioner as per 2MA 157 of 2023 in OA 32 of 2014
rule. As per MA the husband of defendant No.2 died and due to his ill health and Covid-19, the petitioner could not pay the loan.
In counter OP has submitted that the allegations made in the petition are not true. The petitioner herself admitted that this Tribunal granted her time to adduce evidence. Since the petitioner failed to adduce the evidence, this Tribunal passed final order and there are no latches in passing the final order.
After scanning the facts, order sheet of OA 32/2014 I find that petitioner has not explained properly the delay of 1385 days in filing the present MA. Delay is not properly explained.
On the basis of above discussion, I dismiss MA 157 of 2023 without costs.
(Dictated to Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 22<sup>nd</sup> day of January, 2026)
A handwritten signature in blue ink, followed by the date 22.01.2026 written in blue ink with arrows pointing to the signature and the date. PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM