MALLINENI PAVAN KUMAR vs IIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED on 19 August 2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA I.A. No. 237 of 2026 Appl. Dy. No. 361 of 2026 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON Order No. 08 12.08.2026

Mallineni Pavan Kumar & Anr.

... Appellant --Vs— The AO, IIFL Home Finance Ltd. & Ors. .... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Nemani Srinivas, ld. Adv.

For Respondent : Mr. Tutul Das Singh, ld. Adv. R-1 Mr. Bhaskar Chakraborty, ld. Adv. Mr. V. Lakshmi Prasad, ld. Adv. R-3 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I.A. 237 of 2026 is filed u/s 5 Limitation Act. for condonation of 54 days’ delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order dated 09.01.2026 passed by learned DRT – Visakhapatnam dismissing the S.A. 209 of 2023 (Sri Mallineni Pavan Kumar Vs. The Authorized Officer, IIFL Home Finance Ltd. & Ors.). Appeal is filed on 02.04.2026. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation for the reasons which were not intentional. Learned counsel further submits that free copy of the impugned order was not supplied to the appellant. Certified copy of the impugned order was applied on 24.02.2026 which was prepared on 03.03.2026. Copy of the impugned order was sent to lawyer at Chennai and was received by him on 20.03.2026. Thereafter, lawyer at Chennai prepared the draft and sent the same to the counsel at Kolkata, who after correction again sent to Chennai and on receiving the same from Chennai the appeal was filed on 02.04.2026. It is submitted that delay could not be attributed to the appellant rather it was caused for preparation of the appeal. Opposition filed by the respondents. It is submitted that S.A. itself was filed beyond the period of limitation. Further, no sufficient cause could be shown for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Admittedly, appeal is filed with the delay of 54 days. Impugned judgment and order was delivered on 09.01.2026. Application for certified copy itself was filed on 24.02.2026, that is, after laps of the period of limitation for filing appeal. Now it is to be seen as to whether the appellant could be able to make out a case of sufficient cause for condonation of delay? The main opposition to application u/s 5 Limitation Act is based on the ground that securitization application itself was filed with the delay which is not condonable. Hence, appeal itself is not maintainable. As far as the issue of delay, if any, in filing the securitization application is concerned, the same should have been raised before the learned DRT. This issue relates to the merit of the matter which could only be looked into at the hearing of appeal. However, as far as issue of delay in preferring the appeal is concerned, the ground taken in the application u/s 5 Limitation Act are attributable towards the lapse on the part of the counsel for the appellant for a substantial period. When the grounds are such a nature wherein delay is attributable to the learned counsel, the litigant or appellant should not suffer for such latches. Accordingly, I found the ground to be sufficient for condonation of delay. I.A. 237 of 2026 is allowed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority of West Bengal within two weeks. Appeal be admitted by providing regular appeal number. Opposition to the appeal be filed within three weeks with copy to the appellant who may file rejoinder within a week thereafter. List on 30.09.2026 for hearing of appeal.

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson Dated : 12.08.2026 /pkb