Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CANARA BANK vs SRI SURA CHINA VEERA REDDY on 8 October 2026
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM**
Present: - Sri Krishna Gopal Dwivedi, Presiding Officer Dated the 8<sup>th</sup> Day of October, 2026
M.A.No.22 of 2026
in
O.A.No.730 of 2019
**Between:**
Canara Bank, Magunta Layout Branch, Nellore, Rep. by its Manager.
.....Petitioner/Applicant Bank
**And:**
Sura China Veera Reddy, S/o Pedda Veera Reddy, residing at D.No.5/2A, Bovitlavanipalli, Chennampalle PO, Badvel, Kadapa-516227.
.....Respondent/Defendant
**Present:-**
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner
- Smt. P. Nagini
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 706 days in filing the Re-open petition in the interest of justice.
Vide order dt.20.08.2026, the respondent/OP is debarred from filing counter.
As per petitioner, the applicant bank filed the above O.A. against the defendant for recovery of the outstanding loan dues. The defendant, despite service of summons, failed to appear and OA was set exparte. The matter was thereafter posted for the applicant's evidence. On the basis of information received from the concerned branch officials that the loan account had been settled, the Applicant filed an FS Memo dated 15.04.2024 reporting the settlement before this Tribunal.
As per MA, upon reconciliation of the loan account and verification of the auction sale proceeds, it was found that a substantial amount still remained outstanding despite adjustment of the sale proceeds. The petitioner thereafter completed the necessary internal verification and procedural formalities and instructed its counsel to take appropriate steps for reopening the proceedings. The delay of 706 days in filing the Re-open petition occurred solely due to the aforesaid bona fide circumstances and administrative reconciliation process. The delay was neither wilful nor deliberate, and there was no negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the applicant Bank. The applicant bank has a substantial claim on merits and public money is involved.
Perused the record. After perusal of the record, I find that on the basis of the petition filed by the applicant bank, the OA was disposed of on 15.04.2024.
As per memo, the matter was settled out of court and the Ld. Advocate for the applicant bank had filed the not press memo and accordingly, OA was disposed of. Since matter is disposed of as per memo of the applicant bank, it is a mistake of the applicant bank. The applicant bank has filed the present MA after 706 days which is not just and proper. For this delay, the applicant bank and its legal section is liable. The reason given for the delay is not just and proper for re-opening the matter.
On the basis of the above discussion, MA 22/2026 is hereby dismissed.
[Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day of 8<sup>th</sup> October, 2026]
**PRESIDING OFFICER** **DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL** **VISAKHAPATNAM**