191090009302025_bdafbf7e31c81ed2f5c08d79c30836fa.pdf

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA  
            HON’BLE MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
        Misc. Appeal Diary No. 930 of 2025
    (Arising out of I.A. 2736 of 2024 & I.A. 2737 of 2024 in O.A. 855 of 2018 at        
DRT-II, Hyderabad)
Order No. 03
24.9.2025 
Sri Manji Patel           … Appellant
           -Vs- 
Indian Bank (Formerly Allahabad
Bank) & 3 Others …  Respondents
Mr. G.K. Deshpande (Virtual) with
Mr. 
Sreyash 
Basu 
Dasgupta, 
Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Santosh Kumar Ray with
Ms. 
Kaushiki 
Bandopadhyay, 
Counsel 
for 
Respondent 
No.
1/Bank
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:  
 For Admission
       I.A. 624 of 2025
Application praying for waiver from making pre-deposit 
under Proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act 2002.
Since the appeal is preferred against an order passed in 
a pending O.A., there is no requirement to make pre 
deposit.  
Accordingly, I.A. 624 of 2025 stands disposed of. 
Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused 
the record.
The instant appeal is preferred against an order dated 
18.7.2025 passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad in         
I.A. 2736 of 2024 in I.A. 2737 of 2024 in O.A. 855 of 2018 
whereby the I.A. filed by the Defendant No. 4 in the O.A., 

2
who is the Appellant herein, was dismissed.  
Learned 
Counsel for Appellant would submit that Appellant could not 
file the evidence as he could not contact his counsel.  It is 
further submitted that if he is not permitted to file the 
evidence, his rights would be jeopardized.
Perusal of the impugned order reflects that the O.A. 
was filed in the year 2018 wherein initially right to file 
Written Statement was forfeited but was subsequently 
allowed on 28.6.2023. Thereafter, sufficient opportunity was 
granted to the Appellant to lead evidence but neither the 
evidence was produced nor the costs were paid.  
On 
16.4.2024 right to adduce evidence by the Appellant was 
forfeited.  However, on the request of the Appellant that 
order was recalled and the matter was again listed for 
evidence on 29.4.2024 subject to payment of costs.  But on 
the date fixed, i.e. on 29.4.2024, neither the Appellant paid 
the costs nor made any representation. Accordingly, again 
the right to adduce evidence was forfeited.
Arguments of the Applicant Bank had already been 
heard. 
Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Appellant 
herein is only interested to drag on the proceedings for an 
unlimited time which is not permissible under the law.  
Sufficient opportunities were granted to the Appellant to 
adduce evidence. Even after forfeiture of the right, Learned 
DRT again considered the request and granted time, subject 
to payment of costs, to file evidence but neither the costs 

3
were paid by the Appellant nor the Appellant was present on 
the date fixed which shows the intention of the Appellant 
that drag on the proceedings only.  Appellant is making all 
efforts misuse the process of law.
At this stage, Mr. G.K. Deshpande, appearing virtually, 
submits that he may be permitted to make submission on 
behalf of the Appellant although I have already heard the 
Learned Counsel for Appellant but I permit Mr. Deshpande to 
make his submission. Learned Counsel would submit that 
the Appellant is an illiterate and an aged person; for that 
evidence may be taken on record with the plea, as has been 
shown in the proceedings. Whatsoever may be the situation, 
record would reveal that the process of law has been 
misused by the Appellant. Sufficient opportunity was 
granted to the Appellant but despite granting sufficient 
opportunity, Appellant did not file the same.  I do not find 
any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the ‘Admission’ 
stage.
File be consigned to Record room.
Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the 
Tribunal’s Website.  
Order signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.
 
 
                     (Anil Kumar Srivas

…