MRS W GLADIES JAYANTHI vs CANARA BANK on 31 October 2025

**ORDER**

IA 2124/2019 has been filed on 15.07.2019 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 Act' - by the petitioner praying to condone the delay of 206 days in Page No.:

filing Unregistered Miscellaneous Application (UMA) Dy No.1634/2019. The petitioner is none other than the 3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor in OA 1021/2015.

2. The case set out by the petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor in IA No.2124/2019 through her notary attested affidavit accompanying the IA in brief is as follows:- "That I am the applicant in the above case filing this application to condone the delay for 206 days for the reason that my counsel was not feeling well so she did not appear before the court, after that when the case was dismissed after days only she came to know then she applied for the certified copy and then she filed this appeal, hence kindly condone the delay of ...days"

3. The respondent/applicant bank/certificate holder filed statement of objection on 22.06.2022 contending as follows:- The applicant has no case on merits and the reasons assigned in the affidavit are all false and frivolous. The reasons assigned by the applicant are not bonafide and are all baseless. The applicant has not assigned any cogent reasons with proof in the application for condoning the delay. On the above contentions, the respondent/applicant bank/certified holder prayed for dismissal of the application with costs.

4. The only point arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor is entitled to the relief prayed for?

5. At the outset, this Tribunal expresses its displeasure over the conduct on either side in prosecuting and defending the case. UMA Dy No.1634/2019 was filed on 15.07.2019 along with IA 2124/2019 for condonation of delay. Notice was sent to the respondent/applicant bank/certificate holder on 20.07.2019 by registered post. However, reportedly the steps were not complete as could be inferred from the proceedings. The respondent/applicant bank/certificate holder entered appearance through counsel in the proceedings by filing vakalath on 26.11.2021. However, Ld counsel for the respondent/applicant bank/certificate holder obtained adjournments from 26.11.2021 for filing a Typed by: Ragu statement of objection to IA 2124/2019 and eventually the same was filed only on 22.06.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor was seeking adjournments or being absent or the other side sought for adjournment and finally both sides were heard on 02.07.2025 only. Thus, both sides could aid in protracting and prolonging an interlocutory proceeding for the last more than six years.

6. The Point:- The respondent/applicant bank/certificate holder filed OA 1021/2015 on 06.05.2015 under S.19(1) of the Act for recovery of the sum of ₹29,58,519.18 due under the OCC Can-Trade Scheme loan account No.1702285000002 with interest thereon @19.95% per annum with monthly rests from the defendants and by sale of B schedule mortgaged immovable property.

7. The said OA was allowed as prayed for with interest and costs as per the final order dated 23.10.2018. Pursuant thereto, a recovery certificate bearing No.14447 was issued on 29.10.2018 to the Recovery Officer for recovery of the certificate debt.

8. The petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor on 15.07.2019 filed UMA Dy No.1634/2019 to set aside the aforesaid final order as against her and she has come up with this petition to condone the delay of 206 days in filing the same. According to the petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor, her counsel could not attend the Tribunal on the specified day as she was not feeling well and she could know about passing of the final order dated 23.10.2018 only after a few months. Except stating in a vague fashion that her counsel was not feeling well, she has not pleaded as to what was her illness which prevented her from attending the Tribunal. Although the petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor engaged a counsel to defend her case and the lapse was occurred due to her default only, no affidavit of the counsel is attached along with the petition. It is unbelievable that despite engaging a counsel in the proceedings and contested the case, the disposal of the OA was not known to her even after the lapse of months. Normally, a diligent advocate would not do that. It does show that the Typed by Kaja petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor has not followed up the case with her counsel.

9. A perusal of the OA records shows that the petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor was duly served with summons and she entered appearance through counsel in the proceedings on 17.12.2015. She filed a written statement on 17.03.2016, which was duly considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned final order dated 23.10.2018.

10. S.24 r/w S.2(b) of the Act says that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall, as far as may be, apply to an OA filed under S.19(1) of the Act. Needless to say, the instant application is governed by Art.123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as follows:- <table border="1"> <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>123</td> <td><i>To set aside a decree passed ex-parte or to re-hear an appeal decreed or heard ex-parte.</i></td> <td><i>Thirty days</i></td> <td><i>The date of the decree or where the summons or notice was not duly served, when the applicant had knowledge of the decree.</i></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

11. A careful reading of Art.123 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would clearly show that when summons is duly served on defendant, the period of limitation for filing an application for setting aside a decree passed ex-parte will begin to run not from the date of knowledge of the decree but from the date of the decree itself. Irrefragably, the petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor was duly served with summons in the OA and she contested the case also. However, UMA Dy No.1634/2019 ought to have been filed on or before 22.11.2018. But she filed the above application beyond such period i.e., only on 15.07.2019. Thus, there is a delay of 235 days in filing such application.

12. According to the petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor, no opportunity of being heard was given to her and a final order was passed against her. At the same breath, she says that the counsel-on-record in the OA did not have sufficient information about the case. If that be so it was for her to act on that. The Tribunal is not Typed by: Kuan responsible if the counsel-on-record is not aware of the facts of the case. The final order passed on 23.10.2018 was not an ex-parte final order but was passed on merits of the case only. The contentions raised by the petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor were considered but not accepted and thus rejected by the Tribunal. No satisfactory explanation has been given by her before this Tribunal for condonation of delay. The inordinate delay does not seem to be excusable especially, when she had already contested the case. It only shows that due care and attention has not been shown by the petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor in prosecuting her matter.

13. This Tribunal is required to weigh the explanations offered by the petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor and the acceptability of the same. The delay in this case reflects the inactivity and the inaction on the part of the petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor. The law does not permit one to sleep and to seek one's relief as and when one desires. The failure on the part of the petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor in not showing due diligence in filing the Miscellaneous Application at the right time and the inordinate delay taken in filing the same can only be construed, in the absence of any valid explanation, as gross negligence and lack of bonafides on her part. Thus, IA 2124/2019 is devoid of any merit and thus is liable to be dismissed. Suffice it to say that UMA Dy No.1634/2019 also consequently fails.

14. In the result, IA 2124/2019 is dismissed and consequently UMA Dy No.1634/2019 is rejected. No costs.

*[Dictated to my P.A. transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 31^st day of October, 2025]*

[ IMTIAZ ALI ]

Typed by: Sagar

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 31^st day of October, 2025

**INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2124OF 2019**

IN **UNREGISTERED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Dy No.1634/2019** IN **ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2015**

Between

W Gladies Jayanthi, W/o Nagalingam, 6/1, Murugesh Mudaliar Street, Akkithimmanahalli, Shanthinagar, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560027. ....Petitioner/3^rd defendant/3^rd certificate debtor

And

Canara Bank, having its head office at Bangalore and branch among other places at Vivekanandanagar, Banasawadi Main Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560033. .... Respondent/ applicant bank/certificate holder

**ORDER**

✓ 31.10.25-