Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Smt Latchubhuktha Radhadevi vs ANDHRA BANK on 13 October 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM
Present :- SHRI KRISHNA GOPAL DWIVEDI,
PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated 13<sup>th</sup> October, 2026
IR (MA) 204/2026 Dairy No. 1573/2026 MA No. UN/2026 in MA 99/2023 in SA No. 176/2017
Between
Smt Latchubhuktha Radhadevi, W/o. Rambhuktha, Residing of D.No. 5- 130, Visakha-A colony, Srikakulam Town and District
...Petitioner /Applicant
And
1. The Authorised Officer, Andhra Bank (presently Union Bank of India)
Dabagardens Branch, Visakhapatnam
2. Smt Latchubhuktha Lakshmi, W/o. Jaya Ramudu, Resident 9-13-39/1, near Bullaiah College, New Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam
3.G. Veerababu, S/o. Naghabhushanam, Resident of House No. 19-23-22, RH Colony, Nelli Mukku Village, Pedaghantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam.
..... Respondents
Ld Counsel for Petitioner
- Ms. Koti Anuradha Kumari
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**
I have heard the Ld. counsel of the petitioner on IR (MA) 204/2026. In this petition the applicant has prayed to condone the delay of 732 days in presenting the application.
On the above MA the Ld. Registrar has raised objection. As per objection MA 71/2024 is dismissed on contest. Hence this MA cannot be considered. Prayer of the petition is not in proper manner. The days for condonation are not properly calculated. The petitioner has not filed certified copy of dismissal order. The petitioner has also prayed for multiple prayer. Additional parties are not added in the MA.
The Ld. Counsel of the petitioner on the above objections has submitted that the petitioner did not explain the delay. Hence MA 71/2024 was dismissed by this Tribunal. After scanning the record I find that petitioner had filed SA 176/2017 and on 25.04.2023 the above SA was dismissed by this Tribunal for default. The petitioner had filed MA 99/2023
which was dismissed by this Tribunal for default. The petitioner had filed MA 99/2023 which was dismissed for default on 13.06.2024 for want of prosecution. This petitioner had filed MA 71/2024 to restore the MA 99/2023 which was dismissed on 20.11.2025 As per para 8 of the above MA the applicant has filed the present MA with delay of 732 days. The applicant wants to settle the matter. The delay is neither willful nor wanton. The Auction purchaser is not in physical possession of the schedule property.
After scanning the record I find that MA 71/2024 is already dismissed by this Tribunal on 20.11.2025. SA 176/2017 was dismissed on 25.04.2023. MA 99/2023 is already dismissed. Since MA filed by the applicant is dismissed. Hence this 2<sup>nd</sup> MA is not maintainable as per law. Ld. Registrar has rightly raised objections on this MA.
On the basis of above discussion the above Dairy No. 1573/2026 is dismissed as it not maintainable.
(Dictated to Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 13<sup>th</sup> day of October, 2026)
13.10.2026 PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM