Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Smt Pasam Sita Lakshmi vs CANARA BANK on 12 March 2026
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM**
Present: - Sri Krishna Gopal Dwivedi,
Presiding Officer
Dated the 12<sup>th</sup> day of March, 2026
MA 84 of 2025
in
O.A.No.357 of 2018
Between
Smt. Pasam Sita Lakshmi, W/o Pasam Siva Sankara Vijay Kumar, D.No.3-186/5, Sri Sadan, Vigneswara Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District, presently residing at D.No.7-15-20/4, Darga Street, Peddapuram (AP)-533437.
.....Petitioner/Defendant No.3
And
1. Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam
.....Respondent/Applicant Bank
2. M/s. Veekay Smelters Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri. Pasam Siva Sankara Vijay Kumar, Plot No.9, Survey No.921, Industrial Park, Peddapuram, East Godavari District-
533440.
3. Sri Pasam Siva Sankara Vijay Kumar, Plot No.9, Survey No.921, Industrial Park, Peddapuram, East Godavari District-533440.
.....Respondent Nos.2 & 3
Present:-
Sri. J. Kondala Rao & J. Amarnath, Ld. Counsels for the applicant Sri. K.M. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank
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 applicant has prayed to condone the delay of 893 days in filing the petition to set aside the degree passed in OA 357/2018 dt.14.02.2023 in favour of the applicant bank/Respondent No.1.
In the above MA, the applicant has submitted that the applicant had approached the Hon'ble DRAT at Kolkata. The applicant has filed Regular Appeal No.310/2018 and till it is pending before the Hon'ble DRAT, Kolkata for adjudication. The applicant is trying to settle the matter under OTS but the respondent bank has not given any attention on the request of the applicant. The respondent bank is not complying the guidelines of the banking system. The OA filed by the Respondent No.1 is degreeed exparte. The applicant did not contest the OA as per the suggestions of the officials of the respondent bank. The applicant could not file the petition within time before this Tribunal with intention to settle the matter under OTS. On 14.02.2023, the fact came in the knowledge of the applicant that exparte order is passed in OA 357/2018. The applicant could not file the present petition due to misleading suggestions given by the officials of the Respondent No.1/applicant bank. There is delay of 893 days technically for filing this petition but there is actual delay of 14 days.
In counter dt.09.03.2026, the Respondent No.1 has prayed to dismiss the MA with costs.
In this case, the applicant had filed W.P.No.24096 of 2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. The Hon'ble High Court has passed order as follows:
*"Be that as it may, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the DRT to dispose of M.A. No.84 of 2025 and M.A. Dy. No. 1609 of 2025 pending before it preferably within a period of two months from today. Until such time as the said applications are decided, status quo be maintained on spot in regard to the property in question. We make it clear that if there is any attempt by the petitioner to delay the disposal of the said applications, the DRT would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders on the applications so filed and the protection given by virtue of this order will no longer be available even for the time prescribed hereinabove. No costs."*
I have also perused the record and order of OA 357/2018. Vide order dt.14.02.2023, OA 357/2018 is allowed with costs.
Vide order dt.04.09.2018, the case was set exparte against D1 to D3. On 20.09.2018, D1 to D3 filed a set aside petition along with written statement of D2 and adoption memo of D1 and D3. Vide order dt.05.10.2018, the exparte order dt.04.09.2018 against defendants is set aside. Vide order dt.30.03.2019, the OA is fixed for adducing defendant's evidence. On 16.04.2019, 21.05.2019, 26.06.2019 and 19.07.2019, time is given to defendants for adducing defendant's evidence, but defendants did not adduce evidence, hence vide order dt.19.07.2019, defendant's evidence was closed and case was fixed for orders.
Again the defendants filed IA 1799/2019 to re-open defendant's evidence. This IA was pending for long time. After perusal of the order dt.11.08.2022, I find that defendants left the Pairvi and in these circumstances, IA 1799/2019 was dismissed and case was fixed for arguments. Defendants left the Pairvi after giving more than sufficient time at last final order was passed on 14.02.2023.
In this case, defendants have filed written statement, more than sufficient time is given to adduce defendant's evidence but defendants has not adduced evidence. This OA was not exparte against the defendants. In this case, the defendants had filed written statement but did not adduce the defendant's evidence after giving more than sufficient time. The applicant has not explained the reason for delay and for not adducing the defendant's evidence. Parties may compromise the case either under OTS or under any other scheme but it is not a ground for setting aside the final order passed by this Tribunal.
On the basis of the above discussion, I find that the petitioner of this MA has not explained the reason of delay and not adducing the defendant's evidence.
Accordingly, MA 84/2025 is hereby dismissed on contest with costs.
[Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day of 12<sup>th</sup> March, 2026]
**PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM**