SRI K RAGHU RAMA KRISHINA RAJU vs CANARA BANK on 23 October 2026

1. The instant application is filed for condonation of delay of 117 days in filing the present appeal due to the reasons as stated in the application. After considering all facts, the delay of 117 days in filing the present appeal stands condoned. The application is allowed accordingly.

**Misc. Appeal No.242/2026**

2. The respondent filed O.A. bearing T.A. No.1955/2022 titled as **Canara Bank V Sri K. Raghurama Krishna Raju** which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Delhi. DRT-II, Delhi vide impugned order dated 08.06.2026 has dismissed the application bearing I.A. No.1579/2026 which was filed for recall of the order dated 17.03.2026 whereby opportunity of the appellant to file Written Statement was closed. The relevant portion of the order dated 08.06.2026 is reproduced as under:

6. The main contention of the Ld. Counsel for the sole defendant is that the legible copy of the documents was not received by the defendant and he has mentioned the same on 16.07.2024, therefore, he could not file the WS. On 17.03.2026 the defendant has apprised the Hon'ble Tribunal about the said fact. However, the Hon'ble Tribunal closed the defendant right to file the Written Statement. It is submitted that opportunity may be given to the defendant to file the Written Statement, as a legible copy of the relevant documents had not been supplied to the defendant. Further, due to death in the family of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant he could not file the WS. From perusal of the e on file, it is clear that in the order dated 16.07.2024, It has been 2026, mentioned that the Ld.

Counsel appearing on behalf of sole defendant submitted that Vakalatnama has already been filed vide dy. no.6616 dated 19.12.2023 and seeks time to file the WS in the ay be matter which has been vehemently objected by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank 0 the submitted that copy of OA paper book was supplied to the counsel defendant through email dated 02.03.2024 itself. Therefore, it is of the clear that on 16.07.2024 the Ld. Counsel of the defendant never been made any submission that they have not received legible copy of sole documents alongwith OA. They have not file the WS till 17.03.2026 vide and has sought time to file the WS. This Tribunal vide order dated in the 17.03.2026 has closed the opportunity of the defendant to file the WS. According to the provisions of the RDB Act, defendants are bank required to file the WS within 30 days, with a provision for an o the additional 15 days in exceptional circumstances. Consequently, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the time for filing the WS beyond 45 days, in the present case about two years were passed but the defendant has failed to file the WS. Therefore, the contention of the defendant has no force and the order dated 17.03.2026 cannot be recalled. In view of the above the present IA is liable to be dismissed.

3. Sh. Vivek Singh, Advocate for the appellant stated that the appellant has received the legible copy of the Original Application along with annexed documents post hearing on 17.03.2026 when the previous counsel collected the copy of the Original Application along with annexed documents from the office of the counsel for the respondent. He further stated that the limitation to file Written Statement will start from 17.03.2026.

4. Sh. Sanjay Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent argued that the service on the appellant was effected on 22.03.2024 and thereafter the Written Statement was not filed within the period of limitation. He further stated that the present O.A. is pertaining to the recovery of more than Rs.78 crore. Sh. Sanjay Bajaj, Advocate has defended the impugned order.

5. The perusal of record reflects that on 16.07.2024, Sh. Hriday Minocha, Advocate for the respondent had appeared and stated that he had filed his Vakalatnama vide diary no.6616 dated 19.12.2023 and sought time to file Written Statement. The perusal of order dated 17.03.2026 reflects that the counsel for the appellant had raised the objection that certain documents in O.A. paper book were not legible and, therefore, the Written Statement could not be filed and one opportunity was sought to file Written Statement. However, DRT-II, Delhi vide order dated 17.03.2026 observing that more than two years have passed but the appellant has not filed Written Statement within a period of 30 days, closed the opportunity to file Written Statement. In the present O.A. which is pertaining to the recovery of more than Rs.78 crore, substantial rights are involved. The main contention of the appellant is that the appellant received the legible copy of O.A. paper book post hearing on 17.03.2026 and the period of limitation be counted from 17.03.2026. DRT-II, Delhi in the impugned order dated 08.06.2026 only considered that the Written Statement was not filed till 17.03.2026.

6. After considering all facts the orders dated 17.03.2026 and 08.06.2026 are set aside and liberty is given to the appellant to file an application for placing on record the Written Statement confining to the plea that the appellant received the legible copy of O.A. paper book post hearing on 17.03.2026, within seven days from today and thereafter DRT-II, Delhi is directed to decide the said application within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of this application to avoid unnecessary delay in further trial of O.A. bearing no.1955/2022. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

- SP/ - \_\_\_\_\_ **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**

-v\$