MS MUKESH KUMAR JEEWANRAM vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 21 October 2026

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th data-bbox="151 73 298 98">21.10.2026</th> <th data-bbox="298 73 823 98">M.A.No. -38/2025</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td data-bbox="151 98 298 924"> <p>Sr. No.1</p> <p>Present :</p> </td> <td data-bbox="298 98 823 924"> <p>Ms. Prarthi Gelani, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant appeared through virtual mode.</p> <p>None for the Respondent.</p> <p>The present MA was filed by the Applicants assailing the order dated 16/05/25 passed in SA No.317/24 whereby the said SA was dismissed for want of prosecution.</p> <p>Perusal of record found that the Applicant has filed an application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the limitation act. It was contended that since the name of present counsel for the Applicant was not reflected in the cause list he was not aware of listing the matter on 16/05/25 and only in the month of July on checking the status of the case the Applicant came to know about the fact that their case has been dismissed for want of prosecution.</p> <p>Ld Counsel for the Applicant further prays for condoning the delay caused which was purely unintentional.</p> <p>Heard the Ld Counsel for the Applicant on the application for condonation of delay.</p> <p>The Applicants have though not come up with cogent material, in the interest of justice the condonation of delay application is allowed subject to deposit of cost of Rs.2,000/- in the Bhart ke Veer fund.</p> <p>Matter is taken up for hearing on merit.</p> <p>The facts as narrated in the said MA is that the earlier counsel engaged by the Applicant namely Shri Vrushal Bhide, Adv has expired on 11/09/24 which fact was brought to the notice of this Tribunal and this Tribunal has granted time to the Applicants to engage new counsel. However his name was not reflecting in the cause list of 16/05/25 which is the date fixed in the matter. As such the new counsel was of the impression that the instant matter was not listed therefore he could not mark his presence before this Tribunal. The Tribunal on 16/05/25 finding none present for the Applicant has dismissed the SA for want of prosecution.</p> <p>During the argument Ld Counsel for the Applicant has invited attention of this Tribunal towards the cause list of 16/05/25 Ann.-MA-1 to show that the name of the deceased counsel earlier engaged by the Applicant is</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

✓

<table border="1"><tr><td data-bbox="142 70 295 600">Sabeeha</td><td data-bbox="295 70 819 600"><p>being mentioned.</p><p>It would not be out of place to mention here in the said cause list the case number and the details of the parties are also mentioned the Ld Counsel for the Applicant has not pointed out any other reason for none appearance before the Tribunal on the date fixed. However instead of disallowing the MA on the technical ground I am of the opinion that an opportunity may be granted to the Applicant to hear them on merit.</p><p>With this observation, the MA No.38/25 is allowed subject to deposit the cost of Rs. 5,000/- with DRT Bar Association. The SA No.317/24 is restored to his original number accordingly.</p><p>Ld Counsel for the Applicant is submitted that the Tehsildar has issued possession notice scheduling the date of possession on 23/10/26 and prays for hearing on this issue.</p><p>The registry of this Tribunal is directed to restore the SA No.317/24 and list before me on 22/10/26 under possession head.</p><p style="text-align: right;"><b>(Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay)</b><br/><b>Presiding officer,</b><br/><b>DRT-II: Ahmedabad</b><br/><b>Incharge: DRT Jabalpur</b><br/><b>21/10/26</b></p></td></tr></table>