HDFC BANK vs M/s Jyothi Rice Traders on 13 May 2022

ORDER

A petition MA.93/2020 is filed by the applicant to condone the delay of 508 days to restore the OA.349/2015.

2. As per the case of the applicant that in the above matter defendants were set exparte on 9.3.2017 and exparte orders passed on 17.5.2019 and there is a delay of 508 days in filing the set aside petition. It is submitted that they have received demand notice from the Recovery Officer on 3.10.2020 then they came to know that they were set exparte on 9.3.2017 It is submitted that earlier counsel not informed any issues and they are also not approached advocate due to the reason that he has suffered severe ill health and heart problem and also submitted that they have also not received final order copy within the stipulated period fixed under RDDB&FI Act and due to the reasons stated above there is a delay of 508

2 MA.93/2020 IN OA.349/2015 days in filing application hence prayed to condone the delay of 508 days in filing the set aside petition.

3. Counter filed by the respondent bank denying the averments made in the petition and the petition is not maintainable under law or under facts and the reason stated by the petitioners for remaining absent is not satisfactory and the petitioner failed to give proper explanation to set aside the exparte order or to condone undue delay of 539 days and therefore prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4. In the present case, as can be seen from the order sheet of the OA proceedings, in spite of giving sufficient time and opportunity by the Tribunal to the defendants to represent the matter before the Tribunal, the defendants 3 to 5 were called absent and set exparte on 9.2.2017 and D1 and D2 were called absent and set exparte on 9.3.2017 and since then the matter adjourned several times for exparte evidence of the applicant bank and ultimately on 1.8.2018 exparte evidence on behalf of applicant bank filed along with documents and later final orders passed on 17.5.2019. Till the passing of final orders also the defendants did not bother about the case. According to section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 'any appeal or application may be accepted even after the limitation period for the same is over, if the appellant/applicant assures the court that he had a sufficient cause for not being able to file the appeal/application during the limitation period. Sufficient cause means which is beyond control of the party in invoking the section 5 of Limitation Act.

MA93/2020 IN OA49/201 Therefore, it can be seen from the above proceedings of OA, the petitioners/defendants did not bother about their case and the said order was also in the knowledge of their counsel engaged and also it is the duty of the petitioners/defendants to take the knowledge and status of the case from time to time about the progress of the case from his counsel or court. It is negligent on the part of the petitioners/defendants and the cause mentioned in this petition is not sufficient in my view to condone the huge delay of 508 days in filing the set aside petition. On the basis of my above discussion, I dismiss this petition filed under section 5 of Limitation Act by the petitioners/defendants but without Costs. In the result, the MA.93/2020 in OA.349/2015 is dismissed without costs. Tped to the dhctatoon corrected and pronounced by me n the open court on this 13° May 2022 PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM