MR P NAZEER AHMED vs DCB BANK LIMITED on 27 February 2026

**ORDER**

IA 2968/2025 was filed on 06.11.2025 under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 r/w S.24 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the RDB Act' - praying to condone the delay of 64 days in filing UMA Dy Typed by: [Signature]

No.2997/2025 before this Tribunal. The petitioner is none other than the applicant in UMA Dy No.2997/2025.

2. The case set out by the petitioner/applicant through the notary attested affidavit accompanying the IA in brief is as follows:- The Hon'ble Tribunal on 16.07.2025 directed this petitioner/applicant to serve the paper book in SA 399/2024 to the opposite side and adjourned the case to 06.08.2025. However, the counsel took the date as 24.10.2025 instead of 06.08.2025. When the case was taken up on 06.08.2025, the same was dismissed for default. The counsel applied for the certified copy and the application could be prepared thereafter and hence the delay.

3. The respondent/defendant filed a statement of objection contending as follows:- The respondent/defendant has assigned the debt to M/s Encore ARC Private Limited vide assignment agreement dated 31.03.2025, which has not been impleaded in the application.

4. The only point arises for consideration is as to whether the relief prayed for by the petitioner/applicant can be granted?

5. The Point:- Aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2024 passed under S.14 of the Act by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballari in Crl Misc No.34/2024 in respect of the schedule immovable property, the petitioner/applicant on 10.08.2024 filed Securitisation Application (SA) No.399/2024 under S.17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (as amended from time to time) – hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' - of the Act before this Tribunal praying to set aside the aforesaid order. The aforesaid SA was got dismissed as per the final order dated 06.08.2025 for non-service of copy of SA to the opposite side despite repeated orders from this Tribunal. The final order dated 06.08.2025 reads as below:- Typed by Kaja

3

*"None represented for the applicant. Counsel for the respondent bank is present and submits that the applicant has not complied the earlier order passed by this Tribunal, i.e. SA copy not served to the counsel for respondent bank, hence prayed or dismissal of SA in default. Heard Ld counsel for respondent bank. It is noticed from the records that despite the order passed by this Tribunal, appellant has not served the SA copy to the counsel for respondent bank nor the appellant has present today. Hence, it is constructed that the appellant has not interested in prosecuting the case further. Hence, SA is dismissed for default/non-prosecution."*

6. Aggrieved, the petitioner/applicant filed Unregistered Miscellaneous Application (UMA) Dy No.2997/2025 on 06.11.2025 under S.22(2)(g) of the RDB Act praying to set aside the aforesaid final order dated 06.08.2025 along with IA 2968/2025 praying for condonation of delay of 64 days in presenting the UMA.

7. S.22(2)(g) of the RDB Act r/w Rr.8 and 9 of O.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and S.17(7) of the Act says that this Tribunal has power for setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it ex-parte. Needless to say, the instant application is governed by Art.122 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as follows:- <table border="0"> <thead> <tr> <th><i>Article</i></th> <th><i>Description of suit</i></th> <th><i>Period of limitation</i></th> <th><i>Time from which period begins to run</i></th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>122</td> <td><i>To restore a suit or appeal or application for review or revision dismissed for default of appearance or for want of prosecution or for failure to pay costs of service of process or to furnish security for costs.</i></td> <td><i>Thirty days</i></td> <td><i>The date of dismissal</i></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

8. A mere glance at (*Tagore Law Lectures*) *U N Mitra's Law of Limitation and Prescription (14^th Edition) Vol.2 (by Lexis Nexis)* says that restoration to file is the relief to which an application governed by Art.122 is projected. This article provides a period of limitation of thirty days for an application to restore a suit which has been dismissed. The dismissal should have been for any of four reasons, namely, (i) for default of appearance; (ii) for want of prosecution; (iii) for failure to pay costs of service of process or (iv) for failure to furnish security for costs. The terminus a quo for the application is the date of dismissal of the suit. Limitation of thirty days under Art.122 of A

Typed by: Kapa the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to application for restoration of suit dismissed for non-prosecution and limitation begins to run from the date of dismissal and not from the date of knowledge of dismissal. O.9 R.8 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 deals with the procedure where defendant only appears and R.9 of the same bars a fresh suit. Rr.8 and 9 of O.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads thus:- *"8. Procedure where defendant only appears – Where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed, unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case, the Court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and, where part only of the claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder.*

*9. Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit. – (1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under R.8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.*

*(2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party."*

9. In the instant case, SA 399/2024 was dismissed for default of the petitioner/applicant in prosecuting the case as per the order dated 06.08.2025. Therefore, taking cue from Art.122 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation commences from the date of dismissal and as such UMA Dy No.2997/2025 praying for setting aside such order and restoration of SA 399/2024 ought to have been filed on or before 05.09.2025 but the same was happened to be presented before this Tribunal only on 06.11.2025 with a delay of 62 days.

10. The petitioner/applicant in paragraph 4 of the UMA under the head 'limitation' has pleaded that the said application was not filed within the period of limitation and, therefore, a separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. The averments reads as below:- *"The applicant in the above case is seeking for setting aside the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, dismissing SA No.399/2024 for default and to restore the said application on file. There is delay of 60 days in filing the above case. Separate interlocutory application for condonation of delay is filed."*

Tried My Kapa

11. On receipt of the application, the Registry scrutinised the application and found to be defective for defects noted including that of limitation as per the scrutiny hand's remarks dated 10.11.2025. The Registrar as per the order dated 10.11.2025 granted time up to 24.11.2025 for curing the defects noted, which was further extended up to 08.12.2026. The defects were cured as per the scrutiny hand's remarks dated 24.11.2025. The Registrar vide order dated 08.12.2025 ordered to place IA 2968/2025 before the Tribunal for hearing on 22.12.2025. The order reads as below:- *"Place the IA No.2968/2025 for hearing on delay in diary stage before the Hon'ble Presiding Officer by 22.12.2025."*

12. Both sides were heard on 19.01.2026 and thus an order is being passed as follows:-

13. According to the petitioner/applicant, as per the affidavit accompanying the IA, this Tribunal on 16.07.2025 directed him to serve the paper book in SA 399/2024 to the opposite side and adjourned the case to 06.08.2025 but the counsel took the date as 24.10.2025 instead of 06.08.2025 and when the case was taken up on 06.08.2025, the same was dismissed for default and the counsel applied for the certified copy and the application could be prepared thereafter and hence the delay. A perusal of the proceedings in SA 399/2024 shows that the same was dismissed for default of the petitioner/applicant for non-service of the paper book to the opposite side despite repeated orders by the Tribunal. However, it is seen that a copy of the same was served on the respondent/defendant on 16.10.2024 and he entered appearance through counsel in the proceedings on 23.10.2024. However, Ld counsel for the petitioner/applicant remained absent when the case was called on 06.08.2025.

14. Notwithstanding the above observation, this Tribunal is of the view that IA 2968/2025 may be allowed and the delay of 62 days in filing UMA Dy No.2997/2025 shall be condoned and the final order dated 06.08.2025 shall be set aside and SA

Tried By: Karp

No.399/2024 shall be restored to file, having regard to the fact that the lapse on the part of an advocate shall not prejudice his party. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it may not be inappropriate if the Tribunal imposes a penalty of ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) on the petitioner/applicant and accordingly the sum of ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) may be given to Ld counsel for the respondent/defendant within five days from today for the inconvenience and the prejudice caused to him, failing which IA 2968/2025 and consequently UMA Dy No.2997/2025 shall stand dismissed.

15. In the result, IA 2968/2025 and consequently UMA Dy No.2997/2025 are allowed on the strict compliance as above. For reporting compliance by the petitioner/applicant, adjourned to 06.03.2026. No costs.

*[Dictated to my PA directly on the computer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 27^th day of February, 2026]*

[ IMTIAZ ALI ] **PRESIDING OFFICER**

Typed by Rupa

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 27^th day of February, 2026

**INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2968 OF 2025 IN UNREGISTERED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Dy NO.2997 OF 2025 IN SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.399 OF 2024**

Between

P Nazeer Ahmed, S/o Shaik Ahmed, 4, Kandasidappa Street, 1^st Cross, Neal Old Rayadurga Bus Stand, Bellary, Karnataka – 583101. ....Petitioner/applicant

And

The authorised officer, DCB Bank Limited, 37/1, Upper Ground Floor, Kappagal Road, Gandhinagar, Ballari, Karnataka – 583101. .... Respondent/defendant

**ORDER**

27-02-26