ANIL KUMAR vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 3 November 2026

Order

1. The respondent no.2 to S/borrowers had filed Securitisation Applications (S.A) titled as oM/s Sonata Export Limited and Others V Union Bank of India and Others'bearing no. 4912026 (TSA 0812026) which was pendingbefore DRT-I, Chandigarh. S.A. bearing no TSA 0812026 at present is pending before DRT-III, Chandigarh (herein after referred to as 'DRT'). The appellants no I to 3 being the auction purchasers were arrayed as respondent no. 4 to 6 in TSA no. 08/2026. The respondent no. 2 to 5 filed I.A no. 101212026 on 17.07.2026 (wrongly referred to as I.A. No. 145012026 in some part of the record) seeking amendment of the SA/TSA by incorporating paragraphs no. 37 to 63 in original S.A.

2. The appellants filed reply to I.A no. I01212026 to oppose proposed amendments as detailed in the application and stated that the proposed amendments are highly belated, barred by limitation and contrary to the principles goveming amendment of pleadings. The proposed amendment shall cause serious prejudice to the appellant. It was prayed that the application be dismissed.

3. DRT vide order dated 20.08.2026 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order') allowed the I.A bearing no. 101212026. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced as under: This application was moved on behalf of applicants under order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code for amendment of SA by incorporating subsequent events and placing on record relevant documents and grounds of challenge in view of the judgement passed by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Vishnu Steel Vs. Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank and Others. It was argued by learned counsel for applicants that during the pendency of SA certain events occurred which they want to add in the TSA by adding para no.37 to 63 in the TSA. It was further argued that proposed amendments are necessary for proper and just adjudication of the TSA and prayed that present IA may kindly be allowed. Per contra, sh. Majesh Dheer, Advocate appeared through video conferencing and argued that the IA may be dismissed because the documents and facts which are prayed for amendment were already in the knowledge of applicants. Misc. Appea! No.34712026 **Z

Ms. Priyanka Sood, Advocate argued that the proposed amendments, which applicants wants to incorporate, were already adjudicated by Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the same cannot be agitated again before this Tribunal. There is nothing on record which shows that there is any bar for amendment of the facts which are proposed for amendment There is nothing on record which shows that the facts of proposed amendments were adjudicated by Hon'ble High Court. Proposed amendments are relevant and necessary for just and proper adjudication for SA. There is no objection by either party that proposed amendments are time barred or irrelevant in any manner. Application is supported with affidavit. Accordingly,IA No. 1012/2026 is allowed.

4. The appellants being aggrieved filed the present appeal bearing Miscellaneous Appeal no. 34712026. The appellants challenged the impugned order on the grounds that impugned order is non-speaking and is alien to the law related to amendment. The amendments as allowed by the DRT shall change the nature of the S.A. and the impugned order shall be defeating the spirit and object of the SARFAESI Act. The appellants are the auction purchasers who have participated in the public auction undertaken by the respondent no. 1 under the SARFAESI Act. The appellant had filed the reply to the amendment application bearing I.A no. 101212026. The appellants by way of amendment are seeking to introduce completely new additional facts and grounds and consequential reliefs in the pending proceeding. The proposed amendments were belated, lacking due diligence and a new case was sort to be introduced which was already within the knowledge of respondent no. 2 to 5. The appellant also referred orders dated 10.07.2026 whereby the S.A. was ordered to be transferred to DRT-III. The S.A was ordered to be transferred to DRT-I vide order dated 16.01 .2026 passed by this Tribunal. The appellant suffered serious prejudice with the impugned order whereby the amendment application was allowed and the appellant was given only seven days to reply. The appellant also raised various other grounds to challenge the impugned order. It is ultimately prayed that the appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

5. Sh. Sanjeev Bhandari, Senior Advocate along with Arjit Sharma, Advocate for appellants advanced arguments. The additional written statement is also perused for deciding the present appeal.

a

6. Sh. Sanjeev Bhandari, Senior Counsel for the appellants primarily argued that the impugned order was non-speaking and was not passed in accordance with the law relating to amendment. The proposed amendments as allowed vide impugned order shall change the nature of entire S.A. and even the amended S.A. was filed before the passing the impugned order. The Tribunal passed the order dated 10.07.2026 on application seeking the transfer of SA bearing no. TSA 0812024 filed by the respondent no. 2 to 5 without the opportunrty of being heard to the appellants. Sh. Sanjeev Bhandari also mentioned that this Tribunal vide order dated 16.01 .2026 had earlier transferred the S.A bearing no. TSA 0812026 from DRT-II to DRT-I but the said S.A remained pending before DRT- II. The respondents no. 2 to 5 filed the amendment application dated 17.07.2026 immediately after passing of the order dated 10.07.2026. The appellants despite issuance of sale certificate dated 15.05.2022 have been subjected to fuither prejudice by passing of the impugned order. The impugned order is contrary to the objections taken by the appellants which cause serious prejudice. The impugned order suffered material irregularity. The respondents no. 2 to 5 were fully aware of the auction proceedings, Sale Certificate and subsequent developments including the physical possession due to other litigations between the parties. DRT has not considered the reply while passing the impugned order. DRT has not considered that the appellants were the bona fide auction purchasers. It was ultimately argued that the impugned order be set aside.

7. Order VI rule 17 deals with amendment of pleadings where the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either pa{ty to alter or amend pleadings in a manner and on terms that may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The proviso clause provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of diligence the party could have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers V Naryanaswamy and sons and others (2009) 10 SCC 84 dealt with law relating to law of amendment. The Supreme Court observed the satisfaction of two conditions by the court before allowing the amendmenti.e. whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy between the partiesand no prejudice or injustice shall be caused to the other side. The relevant para of the decision is reproduced as under: whether amendment is necessary to decide real controversy

58. The first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the courtsr discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment. No prejudice or injustice to other party

59. The other important condition which should govern the discretion of the court is the potentiality of prejudice or injustice which is likely to be caused to the other side. Ordinarily, if the other side is compensated by costs, then there is no injustice but in practice hardly any court grants actual costs to the opposite side. The courts have very wide discretion in the matter of amendment of pleadings but court's powers must be exercised judiciously and with great care. The Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India V Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another (2022) 16 SCC 1 provided guidelines for amendment of pleading. It was held that all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. It was also observed that the prayer for amendment is to be allowed if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties andto avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The proposed amendment should not have result in injustice to the other party and there should not be withdrawal of clear admission and the amendment should not raise a time barred claim. It was further observed that a prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed subject to the above conditions. The Court in dealing with a prayer of amendment of pleadings should avoid a hypertechnical approach, ffid is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. The relevarfipara of the above said decision is reproduced as under: 70.....

(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

o

(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed

(i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and

(ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) bV the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and

(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (D by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration,

(ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit,

(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or

(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.

(vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.

(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.

(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (*) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pteaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.

(xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. Misc. Appeal No.347/,2026

8. It is reflecting from the record that the appellants being the auction purchaser pursuant to the sale notice dated 17.12.2020 and the auction of the subject property conducted on 18.01.2021 were emerged as the successful bidders and the sale was confirmed in their favour. The sale certificate was issued which was registered with the sub-registrar, Panchkula on 15.05.2023. The respondent no.2 to 5 in the TSA 0812026 filed application bearing I.A no. 102112026 seeking amendment of the S.A primarily for quashing of the sale conducted on 18.01 .2021 along with forfeiting of 25o/o amount of auction purchasers under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI rules as well as to declare the sale confirmation letter of 25.02.2021, the sale certificate dated 12.03.202I, the sale certificate registered on 15.05.2023 and its re allotment to the auction purchasers as illegal, arbitrary and non est. DRT vide impugned order allowed the amendments amendment in the original S.A.

9. The applicants in the S.A primarily prayed that the demand notice dated 04.07.2019 and the possession notice dated 30.09.2019 be quashed besides quashing of auction notice dated 17.12.2020 for the subject property scheduled for 18.01 .2021. It was further prayed that the physical possession of the property were restored and the account was classified as NPA wrongly. It is also reflecting that the respondents no 2 to 5 filed the amendment application bearing I.A no. 101212026 on the premises of happening of subsequent events which are stated to have been arisen out of the SARFAESI measures already undertaken by the respondent no. 1 including confirmation of the sale of the secured assets, issuance of sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser and order passed by the District Magistrate, Panchkula under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is also contended that the respondents no 2 to 5 also filed applications, Writ Petitions and other complaints at various adjudicatory forums. The respondents no 2 to 5 also pleaded that these subsequent events would be affecting the factual position of the S.A materially and would be having direct impact on the rights and liabilities of the parties. It was also contended on behalf of respondents no 2 to 5 that incorporation of such subsequent events and additional ground of challenge would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also necessary for complete and effective adjudication of all the disputes arising out of SARFAESI measures under challenge. The respondents no 2 to 5 by proposed amendments intended to incorporate paragraphs no. 37 to 63. The respondents no 2 to 5 also sought to add various grounds for seeking quashing/setting aside of the measures taken under

SARFAESI Act taken subsequent to filling of the S.A. The respondents no. 2 to 5 also proposed amendment in the prayer clause as well as amendment in the interim relief.

10. Sh. Sanjeev Bhandari primarily argued that the impugned order was non- speaking order and was not in consonance with the law relating to the amendment. It was also argued that the amendment application dated 17.07.2026 which was allowed vide impugned order dated 20.08.2026 has completely changed the nature of the S.A. and would be discouraging to the general public to participate in public auction under SARFAESI Act. Sh. Bhandari also vehemently refened the order dated 10.07.2026 whereby S.A was ordered to be transferred to DRT-III and the order dated 10.07.2026 was in conflict with the earlier order dated 16.01.2026 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal bearing no. 4512025 by this Tribunal. Sh. Sanjeev Bhandari also referred that the DRT-III has taken the amended S.A on record and there was no urgency in allowing the amendment application vide impugned order. Sh. Bhandari also argued that the DRT while passing the impugned order has not considered the reply and objections raised against the amendment application. It was also argued that the impugned order shall cause injustice and prejudice to the appellant and proposed amendments were also barred by the limitation as the proposed amendment were filed after a gap of 5 year from the date of SAMAESI measures. Sh. Sanjeev Bhandari ultimately argued that the impugned order be set aside and the appeal be allowed accordingly.

11. As the legal position on the law relating to the amendment as discussed hereinabove, the amendments in the pleadings should be ordinarily allowed if the amendments are necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties but with the condition that the amendment should not cause prejudice to the opposite party. The respondents no 2 to 5 only sort to incorporate subsequent events as detailed hereinabove which happened after filling of the present S.A. The amendments as allowed vide impugned order are appearing to be necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties and for complete and affective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The amendments allowed by the impugned order shall not be changing the nature of the original S.A. as the amendments allowed by the impugned order were arising out of the SARFAESI action initiated against the same subject property. DRT-III Chandigarh in the impugned order also considered the rival contentions of the parties and thereafter held that the amendments were relevant necessary for just and proper adjudication of S.A. The arguments advanced by Sh. Sanjeev Bhandari as detailed hereinabove are considered in the right perspective and appropriately but they are without any legal basis. There is no force in argument advanced by Sh. Sanjeev Bhandari that the amendments allowed by the impugned order shall change the nature of the pleadings i.e. the original S.A. If it is presumed that the amendments were time- barred the appellants shall be at liberty to raise the issue of limitation during the trial of S.A. The reference of order dated 10.07 .2026 passed in transfer application whereby the S.A. was ordered to be transferred to DRT-III does not have any bearing effect in the consideration of present appeal due to the reason that the separate judicial proceedings are pending.

12. There is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. The present appeal is devoid of merits hence dismissed. The appellant shall be at liberty to file the written statement to the S.A in accordance with law and the limitation for filing the amended S.A shall commence from the date of passing of this order. The appellants shall be at liberty to raise all the pleas and contentions in the amended written statement including the plea of limitation in accordance with law. It is also made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the final merit of the case in the present order. a S{ - /-,., (D.. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain) Chairperson -S