Bonthu Aruna vs State Bank of India

Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson

I.A. 252 of 2020

This application is for condonation of delay of 591 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2019 passed by Learned DRT-1, Hyderabad in O.A. 1466 of 1999 wherein Learned DRT had allowed the O.A. against Defendants No. 1, 3 and 4.

Defendants No. 7 and 8 were allowed to claim surplus amount from the sale of secured assets.

This appeal is preferred by Respondents No. 7 and 8.

I have heard Learned Counsel for Appellant as well as Respondent No. 1 and have perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the delay has duly been explained. It is alleged in para 11 of the application that due to ill health of husband of Appellant No. 1, namely Smt. Bonthu Aruna, appeal could not be filed. It is further submitted that earlier counsel did not inform the Appellant regarding disposal of the O.A. Appellant came to know only in the month of November, 2019 when the certified copy of the order was delivered to him. Thereafter, Appellant contacted the Counsel in the month of March, 2020. A proposal for OTS was also submitted to the Bank but the same did not materialize and the writ petition was returned by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. Thereafter, due to pandemic situation, the appeal could not be filed.

At the very outset, it appears that Appellants have not been able to explain the delay which is required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is settled legal proposition that day to day delay has to be satisfactorily explained.

So far as the ground of ill health of the husband of the Appellant No. 1 is concerned, the same has not been substantiated with any medical prescription or medical record.

Appellants themselves conceded that they came to know of the disposal of the O.A. in the month of November, 2019 whereas this appeal was preferred on the 11th of November, 2020. Though an effort is made to take advantage of the pandemic situation prevailing since March, 2020 but failed to give satisfactory explanation for not filing the appeal immediately after November, 2019; before the declaration of the pandemic situation in March, 2020; though even then the time to prefer the appeal, within the prescribed period, had expired. In such circumstance, Appellants could not even take advantage of the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed with reference to the pandemic situation.

Having considered the submission and the discussions made hereinabove, I find the Appellants totally failed to explain the delay in preferring the appeal. The application, being I.A. 252 of 2020, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, preferred by the Applicants, is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

ORDERED

The application, being I.A. 252 of 2020, under Section 5 of the limitation Act, is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal, being Diary No. 420 of 2020, is also dismissed as time barred.

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellants and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

File be consigned to Record room.

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.