SMT DEEPA SINGH KALRA vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 20 April 2026

**ORDER**

The petitioner filed IA 978/2025 on 17.04.2025 under S.24 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the Act' r/w

S.151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908- praying to condone the delay of 298 days in filing Unnumbered Miscellaneous Application Dy. No.1067 of 2025 under S.22(2)(g) of the Act praying to set aside the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by this Tribunal in Securitization Application (SA) 218 of 2024. 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: - The petitioner/applicant filed present application for suspension of the order dated 09.05.2024 in SA No.218/2024 passed by this Tribunal. The petitioner/applicant submits that his counsel on record was unable to attend the above matter in the 1^st round of calling, as he was stuck in traffic and hence this Tribunal dismissed the SA for non-prosecution. That was due to inadvertent error by this Tribunal as the order sheet in the SA has recorded the presence of his counsel on 30.04.2024 and has issued notice to the defendants. Further the petitioner/applicant submits that he is not present in India at the time of passing of the order and hence, he was unable to instruct his counsel to take necessary steps. He came to Bangalore only on February 2025 and he was unable to travel to India sooner due to health condition and other reasons. Hence, the delay in filing application.

3. The respondent/defendant filed a detailed statement 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 petitioner/applicant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the aforesaid IA?

5. The Point: - The petitioner/applicant filed SA No.218/2024 before this Tribunal 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 praying to set aside the ACMM order in CrI.Misc.No.1143/2024 dated 07.03.2024 issued under Typed by Hubba

SARFAESI Act in respect of schedule property. The petitioner/defendant filed an Interlocutory Application No.914 of 2024 SA No.218/2024 praying to condone the delay of 4 days in filing Securitisation Application. After appearing on 30.04.2024, the case is listed to 09.05.2024 for steps and appearance. Thereafter, the petitioner/applicant remained absent and this Tribunal dismissed in default/non-prosecution on 09.05.2024. The order reads as below: - *"None represented the matter. It is noticed from the records that the appellant has not taken any steps, not turned up for hearings and absent during the last hearing date and even today also. Hence, it is construed that the appellant is not interested to prosecute the case further. Hence, the SA is dismissed in default/non-prosecution."*

6. Thereafter, the petitioner/applicant filed a Unnumbered Miscellaneous Application No.1067 of 2025 under S.22(2)(g) of the Act praying to set aside the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by this Tribunal in SA No.218 of 2024.

7. Apart from this, the instant application is governed by Art.122 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as follows: - <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Article</th> <th>Description of suit</th> <th>Period of limitation</th> <th>Time from which period begins to run</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>122</td> <td>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.</td> <td>Thirty days</td> <td>The date of dismissal.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

8. A careful reading of Art.122 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would clearly specifies that a 30-day limitation period for filing an application to restore a suit or appeal that has been dismissed for default or want of prosecution. This means that if a case is dismissed due to the plaintiff or appellant's failure to appear or prosecute it properly, they have 30 days from the date of dismissal to file an application to have the case restored to court. A perusal of the UMA records shows that the application was filed on 17.04.2025.

Typed by Hailu

9. Going by S.22(2)(g) of the Act r/w O.9 R.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Art.122 of the Limitation Act, 1963, UMA Dy.No.1067/2025 challenging the order dated 09.05.2024 ought to have been filed on or before 08.06.2024. But the petitioner/applicant filed UMA Dy.No.1067/2025 beyond such period i.e., only on 17.04.2025. Thus, there is a delay of 313 days in filing UMA Dy.No.1067/2025.

10. The petitioner/applicant in paragraph 4 of the UMA under the head 'limitation' has pleaded that the application is within the period of limitation. The averments read as below: - *"This applicant submits that the application is to restore the SA No.218/2024 which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 09.05.2024, which is within the limitation prescribed in 22(g) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002(SARFAESI Act)."*

11. On scrutiny, the scrutiny hands of the Registry vide remarks dated 19.04.2025 noted a few defects including limitation. It is noted by the scrutiny hand that IA 978/2025 had been filed for condonation of delay. The defects were cured as per the remarks of the scrutiny hand dated 22.04.2025. Thereafter placed the matter before the Tribunal for hearing on 24.04.2025. The order reads as below: - *"Place the IA before the Hon'ble Presiding Officer on 24.04.2025."*

12. The limitation period for filing an application to restore a suit or appeal that has been dismissed for default or want of prosecution is thirty days only as per the Art.122 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As such, the petitioner/applicant ought to have file his Miscellaneous Application on or before 08.06.2024. The petitioner/applicant in his pleadings mentioned about the reason for the non-appearance is counsel was stuck in traffic. The pleadings are drafted as if the petitioner/applicant has taken it as her statutory right to get the delay condoned by this Tribunal. The said Unregistered Miscellaneous Application is filed by the petitioner/applicant with a delay of 313 days from the date of dismissal. Even then, the petitioner/applicant nowhere mentioned anything about the Typed by Hala reason for the huge delay in filing the instant application. Moreover, the petitioner/applicant filed the securitisation application with delay petition and the Tribunal cannot take the contentions with regard to the merits in the Securitisation application. In the above circumstances, the petitioner/applicant has not put forward any valid case for granting the relief prayed for and, therefore, he has to face the command of the final order dated 09.05.2024 passed by this Tribunal in SA No.218/2024. If final orders are to be set aside on flimsy grounds like these there would be no end and finality to the legal proceedings.

13. However, going through the pleadings in the UMA, the petitioner/applicant submits that the petitioner/applicant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor in the loan transaction with the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. But the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 has mortgaged the schedule property to the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. Further submit that the vendors of the petitioner/applicant had no right to deal with the schedule property having sold the same to the petitioner/applicant under a registered sale deed dated 18.03.2013 for consideration of ₹25,00,000/-. In the meantime, the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and obtained an order under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, the petitioner/applicant filed an application against the S.14 of the SARFAESI Act before this Tribunal in SA No.218/2024. The petitioner/applicant submits that the counsel stuck in traffic on the last hearing date. So he has not appeared and this Tribunal dismissed the application for default/non-prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner/applicant filed instant application to set aside the order of dismissal. As such, 313 days' delay occurred in the present application. But there is no provision to condone the delay 313 days by this Tribunal. However, the petitioner/applicant has prayed for an opportunity to put forth his version to prove. The much belated action of the Typed by Hisha petitioner/applicant at this juncture is only to protract the matter and the same causes inconvenience and prejudice to the opposite side. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation furnished, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal, does not satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay of 313 days. Even assuming that the counsel was prevented from appearing on the particular date due to traffic congestion, the applicant has failed to explain the absence of the counsel on the date of dismissal ^of ^afterwards and also as to why no steps were taken for restoration within a reasonable time after dismissal.

14. It is well settled that a party seeking condonation of delay must show sufficient cause not only for the absence on the date of dismissal but also for the entire period of delay. The applicant has remained silent regarding steps taken before and after dismissal and has not shown due diligence in prosecuting the matter. The ground of traffic congestion for non-appearance on a single day, without any supporting material, cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause to condone such long delay, particularly in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act where expeditious adjudication is the legislative intent.

15. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the prayer for restoration of SA cannot be entertained.

16. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay of 313 days and restoration of SA is hereby dismissed. 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 20^th day of April, 2026]*

[ IMTIAZ ALI]

Typed by Hitha

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 20^th day of April, 2026

**INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.978 of 2025** **IN** **UNNUMBERED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION** **Dy. No.1067 of 2025**

Between

Deepa Singh Kalra, Aged 58 years, W/o Manmohan Singh Kalra, Residing at No.101, Ramson Credence, 2^nd Cross, Udani Layout, Cambridge Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008. ....Petitioner/Applicant

And

Punjab National Bank, Sastra Department Circle, Bangalore East, Raheja Towers, 1^st Floor, 26-27, M G Road, Bangalore-560001, Represented by its Authorized Officer, And another. .... Respondents/Defendants

**ORDER**

20.04.26