SMT MAMATHA T vs CANARA BANK on 27 March 2026

ORDER

The petitioner^s filed IA 996/2025 on 22.04.2025 under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - praying to condone the delay of 37 days in filing Unregistered Miscellaneous Application (UMA) Dy. No.1092/2025 under S.22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 praying to set aside the final order dated 31.01.2025 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application (OA) 1163 of 2020. The petitioner is none other than the applicant in the UMA.

2. The case set out in the notary attested affidavit accompanying the IA in brief is as follows: - Respondent/defendant filed an Original Application No.1163 of 2020 claiming a sum of ₹55,09,253/- and interest and costs thereon. The petitioners/applicants got to know about the proceedings only when they received the notice dated 20.01.2025 rectified as 28.01.2025 from the respondent/defendant bank intimating them to amicably settle the matter by attending Lok Adalat which was scheduled on 15.02.2025. Further the petitioner/applicants submits^s that the summons was never served upon them and due to aforesaid bonafide reasons, the petitioners/defendants were prevented from contesting the case. Hence this application.

3. The respondent/defendant filed a detailed statement of objection stoutly opposing the prayer and praying for dismissal of the IA with costs.

4. The only point arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners/applicants are entitled to the relief prayed for in the aforesaid IA?

5. The Point: - The petitioners/applicants have filed the present Miscellaneous Application seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment and order dated

31.01.2025 passed in the Original Application No.1163/2020. Along with the said application, the petitioners/applicants have filed an interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay of 37 days in filing the Miscellaneous Application.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner/applicants contended that they had no knowledge of the pendency of the OA and that they came to know about the case only upon receipt of a notice to appear before the Lok Adalat scheduled on 15.02.2025. It is therefore prayed that the delay in filing the application be condoned and the ex-parte judgment be set aside.

7. Per contra, the respondent/defendant has opposed the application contending that the summons in the OA were duly served upon the defendants, but despite service, the defendants failed to appear before the Tribunal and placed ex-parte. It is also submitted that after due consideration of the materials on record, this Tribunal proceeded to pass final order on 31.01.2025 and therefore the plea of the petitioner/applicants that they had no knowledge of the proceedings is untenable.

8. I have carefully perused the pleadings and the records of the case. The order sheet in the OA clearly disclosed that summons were issued to the petitioner/applicants and the same were served. Despite service of summons, the petitioner/applicants remained absent and consequently the matter proceeded ex-parte, culminating in the final order dated 31.01.2025. In the present application, the petitioner/applicants have merely stated that they came to know about the case only on receipt of the Lok Adalat notice. However, no satisfactory explanation is offered to disbelieve the service of summons recorded in the proceedings of the Tribunal. When the record shows that summons were duly served, the plea of lack of knowledge cannot be readily accepted.

9. It is well settled that though delay can be condoned on showing sufficient cause under the principles of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner/applicants must place convincing material before the Tribunal explaining the delay. In the present case, the petitioner/applicants have failed to establish any sufficient cause either for non-appearance in the OA or for the delay in filing the present application.

10. Accordingly, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the petitioner/applicants have not made out sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 37 days in filing the Miscellaneous Application. Hence, the IA for consideration of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application seeking to set aside the ex-parte final order dated 31.01.2025 also stands dismissed.

11. No order as to costs.

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

4.27.3.26 [ IMTIAZ ALI ]

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 27^th day of March, 2026

**INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.996 of 2025** **IN** **UNREGISTERED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION** **Dy.No.1092 of 2025**

Between

Mamatha T, Aged 57 years, W/o B L Gajendra,

Bangalore-500094 And another. ....Petitioners/Applicants

And

Canara Bank, having its head office at Bangalore and branch among other places at Malleswaram, 18^th Cross, Bengaluru-560055 Represented by its Chief Manager Sri Aman Gupta. .... Respondent/Defendant

**ORDER**

4.

27.3.26.