inordinate unexplained delay and explained delay, where in the present case, the first respondent had sufficiently explained the delay on account of negligence on part of the government functionaries and the government counsel on re…

Reportable/Non-Reportable
                                           
      
  Appeal No. 48 of 2017-DRAT-Kolkata
     IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Appeal No. 48 of 2017
   (Arising out of I.A. 1263 of 2013 in O.A. 332 of 2010  in DRT, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
B. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Son of Late B. Narasimha Reddy, resident of H. No. 
SRT-1163, Industrial Housing Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.
                    … Appellant
      -Versus- 
        
1A.
Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, 19,  Reliance Centre,
Wiachand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 038 also at 
6th Floor, Plot No. 82, Nagin Mahal, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, 
Mumbai – 400 020;
2.
K. Ravishankar, Son of K. Achyuta Rao, resident of Flat No. 102, KGN 
Towers, Diamond Point Hotel, Bowenpally, Secunderabad; 
   
3.
M. Sundar, H. No. 12-8-261/1, Mettuguda, Secunderabad.
                      
     …  Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant
…  
Mr. Nemani Srinivas
Counsel for Respondents  No. 1  
 
…   
Ms. Mekhala Kanji 
JUDGMENT                         
:   
28th June, 2024
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 
The   instant  appeal  has  arisen  against the judgment and 
order  dated  1st September, 2014  passed by Learned DRT, Hyderabad 
in I.A. 1263 of 2013 arising out of O.A. 332 of 2010 whereby an 
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed for recalling the 
ex parte judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 in O.A. 332 of 2010, 
was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, by the impugned order, Appellant 
preferred the appeal. 
2.
As far as the facts of the matter are concerned, O.A. 330 of 2010
was filed by the Respondent Bank against one M.P. Theodere, Smt. M.
Raveena and A. Walter Dhanraj for recovery of a sum of 
Rs.19,08,141.00 with interest.  
Relief was also sought against 
Defendant No. 4, namely V. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, to bind him against

2
      
  Appeal No. 47 of 2017-DRAT-Kolkata
the claim of the Appellant Bank in respect of the schedule mortgaged 
property.  Allegedly, notices were issued to the Appellant herein in the 
O.A. proceedings which were initially returned and refused by him. 
Subsequently, a paper publication was made in the Telegu newspaper, 
namely Varta dated 8.2.2011 fixing the date of appearance. 
Thereafter, proceedings were ordered to proceed ex parte on 
31.3.2011 and an ex parte order was passed against Defendants No. 
1, 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs.16,46,643.00 and it was also declared that 
in case of default in payment, Bank will be at liberty to sell the 
immoveable property in the custody of Defendant No. 4. 
3.
An application for setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 
21.10.2011 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation 
Act was filed by the Appellant herein on 8.4.2013 stating that notices 
were never served upon him.  He never received notice.  He did not 
read any newspaper wherein the notices were allegedly published.  He 
came to know about the ex parte order in March, 2013 and on 
14.3.2013 CPIR No. 2 of 2013 was filed.
4.
Objections were filed by the Bank stating that notices were duly 
served upon the Appellant.  
He has full knowledge of the O.A. 
proceedings and notices were duly served upon him.  Application 
under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was also filed, hence it could 
not be accepted that the Appellant did not have the knowledge of the 
O.A. proceedings.  It is further stated that no sufficient cause could be 
shown to explain the delay in filing the appeal and the appeal is liable 
to be dismissed.
5.
After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties Learned DRT 
dismissed the application, I.A. 1263 of 2013, under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, holding that the Appellant was having full knowledge of 
the O.A. proceedings and no sufficient ground is made out to condone 
the delay.
6.
Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the Appellant 
was never served with notice in the O.

…