PARAMJEET MOR vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 13 October 2026

1. The respondent no.1, Punjab National Bank, filed O.A. bearing no.95712023 titled as Punjab National Bank V. Ram Kumar, Government Contractor & others which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Chandigarh. DRT-II, Chandigarh vide order dated 17 .01.2024 has closed the right of the appellant who was defendant no.3 in the O.A. to file the written statement. The appellant being aggrieved has filed the present appeal.

2. The counsel for the appellant argued that copy of the O.A. was not supplied at any point of time to the appellant being the defendant no.3 and as such there was no occasion to the appellant being the defendant no.3 to file the written statement. It is further argued that the impugned order 17 .01.2024 is contrary to the factual position and prayed that the impugned order dated 17 .01.2024 may be set aside.

3. The counsel for the respondent no.1, Punjab National Bank, referred the order dated 02.01 .2024, the perusal of which reflects that as per the proxy counsel for the respondent no.l copy of the paper book was supplied to all the defendants including the appellant being the defendant no.3 as per order dated 29.08.2023 but the written statement was not filed. The Registrar incharge of DRT-II, Chandigarh also held that as per order dated 06.11.2023, 15 days were granted to the defendants, including the appellant being the defendant no.3, but written statement was not filed.

4. The perusal of the order dated 06.1 1 .2023 reflects that the proxy counsel for the respondent no.1 Punjab National bank had informed that copy of the paper book was already supplied to the defendants including the appellant on 29.08.2023 through e-mail and thereafter the defendants including the appellant being the defendant no.3 were directed to file written statement within 15 days as final opportunity. The perusal of the orders dated 06.11 .2023 and 02.01.2024 reflects that the appellant being the defendant no.3 had never raised ay objection regarding non-receipt of the copy of the O.A. paper book along with annexed documents. Arguments as advanced by the counsel for the appellant that paper book was not supplied to the defendant no.3 cannot be accepted in these circumstances.

5. This Tribunal in Misc. Appeal bearing noJ3312024 titled as Nikhil Poddar V. Punjab national Bank which was decided on 01.07.2026 after refering various case laws held that there is no provision in the RDB Act which permits DRT to condone the delay beyond 45 days in filing the written statement. The order dated 01.07.2026 was challenged before the Delhi High Court in WP(C) 1367112026 titled as Nikhil Poddar through his duly constituted attorney Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma V. Punjab National Bank through its Authorised Representative and the Delhi High Court vide the judgment dated 23.09.2026 also observed that the delay beyond the maximum period of 45 days as prescribed under Section 19(5)(i) of the Act cannot be condoned by any Court.

6. It appears that the appellant being the defendant no.3 has not filed the written statement within the stipulated time. There is no illegality of infirmity in the impugned order which requires interference by this Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. \\- - -lt------ (Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar fuin) Chairperson -pkS