Mangal Dev Bariwal vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA on 12 August 2026

1. Present as under :

Mr. Mangal Dev Beriwal, the Applicant/Appellant No. 1, in person. Mr. Arkesh Ayyagari, for Respondent No. 1/Bank. No representation for Respondent No. 2 despite repeated calls.

2. Heard both parties.

3. The Counsel for Applicant/Appellant would further submit that this appeal is filed against the impugned order 25.9.2025 with application for condonation of delay of 226 days at Diary No. 1056/2026.

The Applicant/Appellant, Mr. Mangal Dev Beriwal, would submit that Respondent No. 2 is his wife , however , she has not been made Appellant for the reason that for that purpose it would have become necessary for Applicant/Appellant to engage an advocate ; that , moreover , Applicant’s/Appellant’s wife does not know English for that reason Respondent No. 2 is not made appellant although Appellant No. 1 could have made her Appellant No. 2.

He would further submit that no relief is claimed against Respondent No. 2.

4. The Applicant/Appellant would submit that he is neither the borrower nor the guarantor in the loan agreement between the

Respondent No. 1/Bank and Mr. Rajesh Nambiar & Mr. Rajen Kalari.

The Applicant/Appellant would further submit that Applicant/Appellant is the owner of property in question situated at R.S. No. 30 T.P. No. 11 F.P. No. 432 as Applicant’s/Appellant’s wife i.e. Respondent No. 2 is the registered purchaser of the property in question ; that , Applicant/Appellant never mortgaged this property with Respondent No. 1/Bank to secure the loan allegedly extended to abovenamed two persons Mr. Rajesh Nambiar & Mr. Rajen Kalari ; that , the mortgage, if created, that was created fraudulently by these two persons in conspiracy with Respondent No. 1/Bank ; that the Respondent No. 1/Bank took physical possession of his flat on 01.04.2026 without giving any notice to the Appellant.

The Applicant/Appellant would submit that there is a delay of approximately 226 days in filing the appeal and this delay was due to some unavoidable circumstances ; that, now the Applicant/Appellant has cured all the defects and submitting the corrected matter.

The Applicant/Appellant would further submit that he wants the possession of his property, stated above, back today itself as an interim measure.

5. Per Contra, the Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank would submit that he has not been supplied with the copy of the memo of appeal and other Misc. Application etc.

He would further submit that he has been supplied only the copy of the delay condonation application in which the delay of 28 days is stated and not 226 days as told by the Applicant/Appellant.

He would further submit that it seems that he has been supplied with some different copy of the condonation of delay application and not the correct application filed by the Applicant/Appellant.

The Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank would further submit that first the Applicant/Appellant has to cross the hurdle of Waiver Application which he has filed , then the condonation of delay of 226 days has to be decided and thereafter only restoration of possession application, if any, can be heard and decided.

6. In reply, the Applicant/Appellant would submit that he is neither the borrower nor the guarantor , however , he would admit that the property in question is in the name of his wife i.e. Respondent No.

as purchaser and not in Applicant’s/Appellant’s name.

7. In reply, the Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank would submit that if Applicant/Appellant is not the registered owner of the property then he has no locus standi to file the present appeal. He would further submit that he wants to file a detailed written reply to the application for waiver and condonation of delay in filing the appeal but he is not in position to file the same for want of complete copy of these applications.

8. The Applicant/Appellant would submit that he has already supplied these documents to the Bank but he would supply fresh set of copy of the Waiver Application and Delay Condonation Application today itself.

9. Be supplied today and Reply be filed within a week.

10. At this stage, the Applicant/Appellant would submit that as an interim measure the possession of his property taken by the Bank on 01.04.2026 be restored today itself.

11. The Counsel for the Respondent raises objection thereto on the grounds that until the Waiver Application and Delay Condonation Application are decided and Appeal is registered, no possession can be restored.

12. Considered and perused the record.

The Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat at Ahmedabad in its order dated .6.08.2026 on Contempt Petition filed by the Appellant in Misc. Civil Application (Contempt) No. 1930/2026 has directed not to deal with the property in any manner.

13. List the matter on 20.08.2026 for hearing.

Sd/- Chairperson VKC-01