Smt A Padma vs NATIONAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD on 10 March 2026

O R D E R

IA 1044/2018 was filed on 23.05.2018 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 75 days in filing unregistered appeal Dy No.2604/2018 before this Tribunal. The petitioners are none other than the applicants in USA IR No.2593/2017.

2. The case set out by the petitioners/applicants through the notary attested affidavit of the 2^nd petitioner/2^nd applicant accompanying the IA in brief is as follows:- SA 244/2017 filed before this Tribunal was dismissed and, therefore, the family members went into deep depression and the 2^nd petitioner/2^nd applicant, who is kartha of the family, underwent medical treatment and hence there is a delay of 75 days in filing the appeal.

3. Though the respondent/defendant entered appearance through counsel in the proceedings, he did not file any statement of objection.

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

5. The Point:- R.5 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the Rules'- deals with presentation and scrutiny of applications, and it reads so:- *"(1) The Registrar, or, as the case may be, the officer authorised by him, shall endorse on every application the date on which it is presented or deemed to have been presented under R.4 and shall sign endorsement.*

*(2) If on scrutiny, the application is found to be in order, it shall be duly registered and given a serial number.*

*(2A) After registration of the application under sub-rule (2), the Tribunal shall issue summons to the defendants in Form IV.*

Typed in Kapi

(3) *If the application, on scrutiny, is found to be defective and the defect noticed is formal in nature, the Registrar may allow the party to rectify the same in his presence and if the said defect is not formal in nature, the Registrar, may allow the applicant such time to rectify the defect as he may deem fit.*

(4) *If the concerned applicant fails to rectify the defect within the time allowed in sub-rule (3), the Registrar may by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, decline to register the application.*

(5) *An appeal against the order of the Registrar under sub-rule (4) shall be made within 15 days of the making of such order to the Presiding Officer concerned in chamber whose decision thereon shall be final."*

6. The petitioners/applicants on 23.09.2017 filed an application 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' – praying to set aside the order dated 09.08.2017 passed under S.14 of the Act by the 7^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in Crl Misc No.7145/2016 in respect of the schedule immovable property. On scrutiny, the Registry noted a few defects and thus the application was found to be defective as per the scrutiny hand's report dated 26.09.2017. The Registrar vide order dated 26.09.2017 granted time up to 07.10.2017 for curing the defects, which got extended from time to time till 14.02.2018. As the petitioners/applicants failed to rectify the defect within the time allowed, the Registrar vide order dated 14.02.2018 declined to register the application. The order reads as below:- *"Counsel for the appellant present and submits that he has complied with the office objection No.11 raised by the office. On perusal of the relief column, which reads as follows:- (i) to set aside the orders passed by the Hon'ble 7^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Crl Misc No.7145/2016 under S.14, copy of which obtained on 09.08.2017 subsequent to seizing of the portion of schedule property on 08.08.2017 – Annexure A. Reading of the above prayer that the order of the 7^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Crl Misc No.7145/2016 under S.14, copy of which obtained on 09.08.2017 which was challenged. But in fact, perusal of certified copy of the order, it discloses that the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is on 18.11.2016. Therefore, there is delay in filing the appeal. This IR was adjourned from 07.10.2017 till date for compliance of office objection. In spite of sufficient opportunity to remove office objection instead of mentioning date of order passed by the 7^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Crl Misc No.7145/2016, the date of obtaining certified copy, i.e 09.08.2017, is mentioned mischievously in the relief column so as to overcome limitation. Therefore, the conduct on the part of the appellant in non-compliance of office objection i.e not filing IA for condonation of delay is not satisfactory. Therefore, prayer of counsel of the petitioner to adjourn further more is hereby rejected. I hereby decline to register this case, acting under R.5(4) of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, r/w regulation 9(4) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal 2015. Accordingly, IR No.2593/2017 is closed."*

7. Aggrieved, the petitioners/applicants on 23.05.2018 filed the present unregistered appeal before this Tribunal. As per sub-rule (5) of R.5 of the Rules an appeal thereunder ought to have been filed on or before 01.03.2018 but happened to be filed the Typed By: Kapi same before this Tribunal only on 23.05.2018 with a delay of 83 days in presenting the same.

8. The petitioners/applicants in paragraph 4 of the appeal memorandum under the head 'limitation' has pleaded that the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation and hence a separate application for condonation of delay has been filed.

The averments reads as below:-

*"It is submitted that the impugned order was passed on 14.02.2018 by the Hon'ble Registrar. The applicant/appellant herein filed this application for restoring IR 2593/2017, which was dismissed for non-compliance of office objection on 14.02.2018. Immediately, the applicants applied for issuance of certified copy of the said order passed by the Hon'ble Registrar, DRT, Bangalore on 15.02.2018 and the same was delivered on 19.02.2018 by this Hon'ble Tribunal. However, this application is not filed, within 15 days from the date of its dismissal, on 14.02.2018 and hence a separate application to condone the delay of 75 days i.e order passed on 14.02.2018, copy obtained on 19.02.2018, i.e 19.02.2018 to 19.05.2018 = 90 days, 15 days grace period = 75 days."*

9. The conduct of the respondent/defendant in this case is very deplorable. It may be pointed out that the approach of the respondent/defendant in this case is dubious and doubtful as the authorised officer in this case is absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility in defending the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Noor Mohammed v Jethanand [reported in 2013 (1) KLT SN 113 (C.No.96) SC : (2013) 5 SCC 202]* has held that the virtues of adjudication cannot be allowed to be paralysed by non-demonstration of due diligence to deal with the matter and that all who are involved in the justice dispensation system including the law officers have to show dedicated diligence so that a controversy is put to rest. The observations read as follows:- *"The virtues of adjudication cannot be allowed to be paralysed by adjournments and non-demonstration of due diligence to deal with the matter. One cannot be oblivious to the feeling necessities of the time. No one can afford to sit in an ivory tower. Neither a Judge nor a lawyer can ignore 'the total push and pressure of the cosmos'. It is devastating to expect infinite patience. Change of attitude is the warrant and command of the day. Getting an adjournment is neither an art nor science. It has never been appreciated by the courts. All who are involved in the justice dispensation system, which includes the Judges, the lawyers, the judicial officers who work in courts, the law officers of the State, the Registry and the litigants, have to show dedicated diligence so that a controversy is put to rest. Shifting the blame is not the cure. Acceptance of responsibility and dealing with it like a captain in the frontier is the necessity of the time. It is worthy to state that diligence brings satisfaction. There has to be strong resolve in the mind to carry out the responsibility with devotion. A time has come when all concerned are required to abandon idleness and arouse oneself and see to it that the syndrome of delay does not erode the concept of dispensation of expeditious justice which is the constitutional command. Sagacious acceptance of the deviation and necessitous steps taken for the redressal of the same would be a bright lamp which would gradually become a laser beam. This is the expectation of the collective, and the said expectation has to become a reality. Expectations are not to remain at the stage of hope. They have to be metamorphosed to*

Tribunal Regs

*actuality. Long back, Francis Bacon, in his aphoristic style, had said, "Hope is good breakfast, but it is bad supper". We say no more on this score."*

10. Such an attitude cannot be appreciated by this Tribunal as the mistake in defending the case is committed by the authorised officer of the defendant bank only. If such an attitude is permitted, the statutory right of the defendant bank under the Act will become an eyewash and it may not be possible for the bank to realise the secured debt. At any rate, the Tribunal also is of the opinion to say no more on this score and to deal with the matter on merits of the case.

11. A perusal of the proceedings sheet and the case records shows that the respondent/defendant was duly served with a notice in this proceeding on 14.06.2018 and he entered appearance through counsel by filing vakalath on 23.07.2018. But whenever the case was taken up on 23.07.2018, 16.10.2018, 09.01.2019, 22.04.2019, 04.07.2019, 06.08.2019, 14.02.2020, 15.09.2021, 26.11.2021, 19.10.2022, 21.07.2023, 16.10.2023 and 24.01.2024, the respondent/defendant sought time for filing objection, which was never filed. Therefore, the stage of filing objections was closed as per the proceedings dated 24.04.2024. Yet, at request, it was allowed to file statement of objection, if any, as per the proceeding dated 08.11.2024. In spite of all these developments, the respondent/defendant sought time for filing objections when the case was taken up on 14.02.2025 and on 19.09.2025 which never came up before this Tribunal. Besides, the respondent/defendant was neither present nor was he represented in the proceedings when the case was taken up by this Tribunal on 28.11.2019, 27.11.2020, 20.06.2022, 11.01.2023, 07.08.2024, 13.06.2025 and 05.01.2026. In the above circumstances, an interlocutory proceeding originated on 23.05.2018 could be protracted and prolonged for the last seven years and ten months just for the inaction and the lapses occurred on the part of the respondent/defendant, which is not at all appreciated by this Tribunal.

12. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangram Singh v Election Tribunal, Kotah.Bhurey Lal [reported in 1955 SCR (2) 1 : AIR 1955 SC 425 :

Tripoli Kir

1969 MADLW 1], the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Nalini Janardhanan v. Elamana Chinnammu [reported in 2007 (4) KLT 759] has held that presence of an Advocate, only for applying for an adjournment and is not prepared to conduct or to defend case, will not be appearance of party for the purpose of O.17 R.3, and it reads thus:- *"The power to decide the suit on merits under O.XVII R.3(a) seriously restricts the remedy of the losing party for redress. It could not have been the legislative intent to place an absentee party in a more advantageous position than a party who is present, but is unwilling to co-operate on a given reason. Presence of an Advocate who appears on the crucial day only for applying for an adjournment and is not prepared to conduct or to defend the case will not be appearance of the party for the purpose of O.XVII R.3. It may be true that the counsel in the present case did not report "no instructions". But guarantee did express his inability to go on with the trial and was not in fact prepared to go on with trial. That is sufficient to hold that the third condition under O.XVII R.3 was also not satisfied in this case and Ext.P1 application under O.IX R.9 C.P.C filed by the plaintiff was well maintainable in law."*

13. Despite sufficient time granted, the respondent/defendant has not filed a statement of objection nor did he produce any evidence before this Tribunal to controvert or rebut the averments in the unregistered appeal. But a non-contest of the proceedings made by the opposite side cannot stand in way of allowing an application filed by the petitioners/applicants. They have to prove their case before this Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani [reported in AIR 2003 SC 2508] has held that even if the suit proceeds ex-parte and in the absence of a written statement, unless the applicability of O.8 R.10 of the CPC is attracted and the Court acts thereunder, the necessity of proof by the plaintiff of his case to the satisfaction of the Court cannot be dispensed with and that merely because the defendant is absent the Court shall not admit evidence the admissibility whereof is excluded by law nor permit its decision being influenced by irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramappa Gowda v Chandregowda [reported in 2012 (2) KLT SN 92 (C.No.86) SC : (2012) 5 SCC 265] also has held that while proceeding under O.8 R.10, and before passing judgement court must ensure that even if facts set out in plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgement and decree could not be passed without requiring him to prove the fact pleaded in the suit and that even in absence of written statement, burden of proof would remain on plaintiff and his mere assertion in plaint affidavit would not be sufficient to discharge the burden.

Typed by Kapa

14. According to the petitioners/applicants, as per the affidavit accompanying the IA, SA 244/2017 filed before this Tribunal was dismissed and, therefore, the family members went into deep depression and the 2^nd petitioner/2^nd applicant, who is kartha of the family, underwent medical treatment and hence there is a delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. But no proof in this regard is placed before this Tribunal. The aforesaid reason is not a valid reason and sufficient for the delay. As stated above, the petitioners/applicants presented USA IR No.2593/2017 before this Tribunal on 23.09.2017. As the concerned petitioners/applicants failed to rectify the defects noted by the Registry within the time allowed in sub-rule (3) of R.5 of the Rules, the Registrar by virtue of the powers and jurisdiction conferred upon him under sub-rule (4) of the Rules, by order dated 14.02.2018 and for the reasons recorded therein declined to register the aforesaid SA. But, according to the petitioners/applicants, the impugned order passed by the Registrar is not sustainable as the same is without jurisdiction. It may be noted that Rr.22 and 23 of the Rules deals with the powers, functions and the duties of the Registrar of a Debts Recovery Tribunal. In addition to the powers conferred upon the Registrar under R.22 of the Rules, he is empowered to decide all questions arising out of the scrutiny of the applications before they are registered as per sub-rule (ii) of R.23 of the Rules, subject to any general or special order of the Presiding Officer. Further, as per sub-rule (4) of R.5 of the Rules, he was entitled to decline to register an application if the concerned applicant fails to rectify the defect within the time allowed. Therefore, it is of no avail to the petitioners/applicants to contend that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 14.02.2018.

15. It is further contended by the petitioners/applicants that the dismissal of the application only on 'non-compliance of the office objections' without giving sufficient opportunity to comply with the objections and without recording the reasons thereof is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Registry on scrutiny had noted that there is difference in the date of the order referred to in the pleadings and in the relief Tribal In Kaga portion. Yet, the Registry granted time from 07.10.2017 till 14.02.2018 for doing the needful to comply with the defect noted by it. This Tribunal is of the opinion that more than sufficient time had been granted. Still, the petitioners/applicants did not turn up not even in a single occasion to do the needful to cure the defect noted by the Registry. Therefore, the Registrar was entitled to pass the impugned order. He has shown the reason in declining to register the same. In such a situation, the petitioners/applicants are estopped from contending that sufficient opportunity had not been granted to them to cure the defects and the order is not a reasoned order.

16. It is also contended by the petitioners/applicants that the Registrar ought to have extended the period to comply with the office objections on such other terms and conditions, which he deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. When the Rules do not contemplate so, the Registrar cannot bypass such Rules and grant time extensively, especially when the concerned applicant fails to respond to the time already granted by him. S.36 of the RDB Act has conferred powers upon the Central Government, by notification, to make rules to carry out the provisions of the said Act by virtue of which only the Rules were framed. Sub-rule (4) of R.5 of the Rules empowers the Registrar to decline to register an application by an order in writing. Certainly, the impugned order falls within the armpit of the said Rule. The same has only been misunderstood by the petitioners/applicants as dismissal of the said USA. In fact, what has been done by the Registrar by way of the impugned order is not dismissal of the same but only declining to register the same. It may be noted that the petitioners/applicants by way of unregistered appeal Dy No.2604/2018 have only contested against the impugned order and only prayed to set aside the same. Despite being so, the petitioners/applicants have sought for a direction by this Tribunal to register the same. This Tribunal is not inclined to have a heed to the same in view of the non-compliance of the defects noted by the Registry. No party is entitled to file an application according to his whims and fancies and ask this Tribunal to issue a direction to register the same. All parties submitting Tribal HR Reg themselves under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal shall have to abide by the rules and regulations relating to the procedure before this Tribunal, without which no application in any form can be entertained. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Registry. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is only liable to be dismissed.

17. Notwithstanding the above observations, this Tribunal is of the view that IA 1044/2018 may be allowed and the delay of 83 days occurred may be condoned and consequently unregistered appeal Dy No.2604/2018 shall be allowed permitting the petitioners/applicants to cure the defects, if any, noted by the Registry, but not lightly. Looking to the period of delay and the observations made out in the order, it shall not be inappropriate if the Tribunal imposes a penalty of ₹2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) on the petitioners/applicants for wastage of judicial time of this Tribunal, which has its own value, and the same may be deposited in the account of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, 1^st Floor, Nyaya Degula Building, H Siddaiah Road, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560027 within two weeks from today, failing which the IA and the unregistered appeal shall stand dismissed.

18. In the result, IA 1044/2018 and unregistered appeal Dy No.2604/2018 are allowed as above. For reporting compliance by the petitioners/applicants, posted before the Registrar on 30.03.2026. The petitioners/applicants are permitted to cure the defects, if any, in USA IR No.2593/2017 provided the receipt of the aforesaid payment is produced before the Registry within two weeks from today. 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 10^th day of March, 2026]*

**[ IMTIAZ ALI ]** **PRESIDING OFFICER**

TribalH Kapa

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 10^th day of March, 2026

**INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1044 OF 2018 IN UNREGISTERED APPEAL Dy NO.2604 OF 2018 IN UNREGISTERED SECURITISATION APPLICATION IR NO.2593 OF 2017**

Between

A Padma, W/o Narasimhaiah K N, (Proprietor, M/s L N Traders), 6, Devaiah Park Road, Ramamohanapuram, Srirampura, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560021 and four others. ....Petitioners/applicants

And

The authorised officer, National Cooperative Bank Limited, 73/1, Gandhi Bazar Main Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560004. .... respondent/defendant

**ORDER**

10.03.26