MASTER DEEPIT PATIL vs CANARA BANK (SYNDICATE BANK) on 8 June 2026

**ORDER**

Miscellaneous Application No.10/2025 was filed on 10.08.2021 under S.22(2)(G) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time)- hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' praying for set aside the order dated 30.04.2021 passed in OA 994/2020 and permit the petitioner to proceed further. The petitioner is none other than the defendant No.2 in the OA.

Typed by: Hitesh

MA No.10/2025 in OA No.994/20202

2. The case set out by the petitioner/defendant No.2 in the MA No.10/2025 in brief is as follows: - The respondent/applicant bank filed original application 994 of 2021 for the recovery of the sum of ₹1,18,91,000/- together with interest and costs etc. After issuing the notice, the petitioner/defendant came on record on 01.01.2021 through his counsel. After receiving the paper book the petitioner/defendant filed written statement along with an interlocutory application on 17.03.2021 before the Registry. On 09.04.2021, the respondent/applicant adduced its evidence stating that the petitioner/defendant has not filed written statement and posted for arguments. Thereafter this Tribunal passed order on 30.04.2021. Hence the petitioner/defendant prays for set aside the order dated 30.04.2021.

3. The respondent/applicant filed objection refuting the prayer and stated as follows: - The summons were issued in the OA and the petitioner/defendant came on record on 01.01.2021. But neither written statement nor applications filed by this petitioner. No such documents are recorded in the proceeding sheet and also no copy served to the respondent/applicant. Hence the allegation taken by the petitioner/defendant is not sustainable. Hence dismiss the application.

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

5. The Point: - The Miscellaneous Application is filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking to set aside the ex-parte order dated 30.04.2021. The record discloses that the paper book was served on 20.01.2021. As per order sheets dated 16.03.2021 and 09.04.2021, no written statement was on record. On 12.04.2021, the matter was heard and the defendant remained absent. Final order was thereafter pronounced on 30.04.2021. The defendant relies upon a receipt/seal dated 17.03.2021 to contend that a written statement had been filed. Though the judicial record does not Typed by Hala reflect such filing and ordinarily carries a presumption of correctness, the said receipt creates a limited doubt as to whether the documents were tendered before the Registry but not placed on record. At the same time, the conduct of the defendant is not satisfactory. The defendant failed to ensure that the alleged written statement was brought on record and remained absent at the stage of hearing.

6. In these circumstances, while the Tribunal is not inclined to condone the conduct of the defendant, a limited opportunity is granted in the interest of justice, strictly on terms, so that the matter may be decided on merits.

7. Accordingly, the ex-parte final order dated 30.04.2021 is set aside subject to the following conditions: -

1. i. The petitioner/defendant No.2 shall pay costs of ₹2,000/- to the applicant bank within two weeks from the date of this order.

2. ii. The written statement claimed to have been filed on 17.03.2021 shall be taken on record only upon compliance of costs, and the defendant shall not introduce any new pleadings or documents.

3. iii. The defendant is permitted to file evidence by way of affidavit, if not already filed, strictly confined to the pleadings in the written statement and documents already on record. No additional documents shall be permitted.

4. iv. The defendant shall not seek adjournments on any ground whatsoever.

5. v. The matter shall proceed from an advanced stage and the Tribunal shall be at liberty to regulate further proceedings, including limited evidence, if any, and proceeding to arguments.

8. It is made clear that in case of default in payment of costs within the stipulated time, this order shall stand automatically vacated and the ex-parte judgment dated 30.04.2021 shall revive without further reference to the Tribunal. The Registry shall monitor compliance of the above conditions and place the matter before the Typed in: Hala

Tribunal upon compliance. In the event of non-compliance within the stipulated time, the Registry shall note the same, whereupon the ex-parte judgment shall stand revived in terms of this order.

9. With the above directions, this Miscellaneous Application No.10/2025 stands disposed of.

*[Dictated to my Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 8^th day of June, 2026]*

[ IMTIAZ ALI ]

Typed by Hilla

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 8^th day of June, 2026

**MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.10 OF 2025 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.994 OF 2020**

Between

Deepit Patil, S/o Shivanagouda Patil, Aged about 19 years, Residing at Post: Jambagi K D, Taluk Mudhol, District Bagalkot-587313. ....Petitioner/defendant No.2

And

Canara Bank, (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) having its head office at Bengaluru and branch among other places at Malleshwaram, 18^th Cross Branch Bengaluru-560055. ....Respondent/Applicant

**ORDER**

8.6.26