Chandragiri Yesu Ratnam vs M/s Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited & Anr.

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

Instant Appeal has arisen against an order dated 23.07.2025 passed by Learned DRT-II Hyderabad in MA No. 31 of 2024 in I.A. No. 1707 of 2025 in S.A. No. 317 of 2017 (Ravikanth Konda versus Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited) wherein I.A. No. 1707 of 2025 filed by the Applicant/ Auction Purchaser was dismissed.

As per pleadings of the parties, S.A. No. 317 of 2017 (old S.A. No. 375 of 2015) was filed by Ravikanth Konda, Respondent No. 2 in the Appeal before DRT-2 Hyderabad challenging the sale conducted by the Financial Institution on 15.07.2015 pursuant to Sale Notice dated 10.06.2015. Auction Purchaser i.e. the Appellant herein Shri Chandragiri Yesu Ratnam was also made a party in the Application. S.A. No. 317 of 2017 was allowed and the sale was set aside with a further direction to take back the possession by the Financial Institution from the Auction Purchaser. An Appeal Dy. No. 341 of 2021 was preferred by the Financial Institution which was not registered by the Registrar DRAT Kolkata and was dismissed on 12.07.2022 for default for non- compliance of the earlier order of the Registrar dated 27.04.2022. A Misc. Appeal No. 580 of 2023 was filed for restoration of the Appeal wherein the Auction Purchaser was also a party which was also dismissed by the DRAT Kolkata on 03.10.2024.

M.A. No. 31 of 2024 was filed by the borrower for effective implementation of the order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Learned DRT-2 Hyderabad to take back possession of the secured assets from the Auction Purchaser by the Financial Institution.

Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the DRT. Advocate Commissioner issued the notice to the Auction Purchaser to vacate the secured assets.

Auction Purchaser filed the I.A. No. 1707 of 2025 in M.A. No. 31 of 2024 with the relief to set aside the order dated 05.03.2025 appointing Advocate Commissioner by the DRT.

Appeal Diary No. 662 of 2025 was also filed by the Financial Institution against the final order of S.A. but was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn on 08.09.2025. I.A. No. 1707 of 2025 was dismissed by Learned DRT holding that the sale in question has been set aside and attained finality which order is under challenge.

Learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant argued in detail to the factual aspects of the matter. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the Appellant herein is an IPS Officer who was earlier posted in Unified State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. On bifurcation of the State, he was assigned the State of Andhra Pradesh and was transferred to District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. In the Unified State of Andhra Pradesh, he was residing in the official residence which address was available on records. Vide G.O.RT. No. 410 dated 03.09.2025 Government of Telangana building was dismantled which was in the Punjagutta Officers Colony Hyderabad. Subsequent thereto, Appellant shifted to Guntur. Learned Counsel would submit that no notice of Securitisation Application was ever served upon him as the notices were issued and published on his official address. But since he was not residing there, notices could not be served. Appellant only came to know about the impugned order including the order of allowing the S.A. on 05.06.2025 when the Advocate Commissioner issued a notice to vacate the secured assets on the Appellant's official address as well as the address of secured assets. Secured asset is a residential flat wherein the son of the Appellant is residing and he got the information about the proceedings. Thereafter, Appellant approached the DRT for recalling of the order appointing the Advocate Commissioner. It is further submitted that an Application for setting aside the order passed in the S.A. along with Application for condonation of delay is also filed before the DRT which is still pending.

Per contra, Learned Counsel for the borrower would submit that the Appellant was duly served on 28.09.2015 by speed post and memo was also filed before the DRT on 29.09.2015. It is further submitted that the Appellant himself has stated in the petition that he shifted to Guntur in 2016. Learned Counsel would further submit that the Appellant was duly served. He was having full knowledge of the proceedings pending before the DRT but did not put in his appearance only because of the reason that he was watching the proceedings with an intention to observe as to what stand is being taken by the Financial Institution?

At the very outset, without entering into the merits of the matter it is to be observed that the impugned order is passed wherein a prayer for setting aside order dated 05.03.2025, whereby Mr. Mukesh Sharma Advocate was appointed as Advocate Commissioner, was made. Impugned Order dated 23.07.2025 is challenged on the ground that the Appellant remained exparte in the S.A. as well as M.A. proceedings and the order was passed on contest by the secured creditor. However, as far as rights of the Appellant is concerned, they are under challenge in the Application for setting aside the order passed in the S.A. proceedings although along with an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. All the grounds taken in the I.A. No. 1707 of 2025 have also to be considered in the Application for setting aside the order passed in S.A. at the appropriate stage by the DRT. At this stage, any finding regarding merits of the matter, as to whether the Appellant was duly served or not in the S.A. proceedings, would affect the outcome of Application pending before the DRT. In such circumstances, without entering into the merits of the matter since the issue of recalling of order dated 23.12.2019 and Application for condonation of delay is to be finally decided by the Learned DRT, we are of the considered view that the implementation of the order appointing the Advocate Commissioner and the consequential action thereafter has to be set aside. Although issue of maintainability of Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 is kept open to be decided by the Learned DRT.

With the observations made above, appeal deserves to be allowed.

Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by Learned DRT-II Hyderabad in MA No. 31 of 2024 in I.A. 1707 of 2025 in S.A. 317 of 2017 (Ravikanth Konda versus Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited) is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Learned DRT with a specific direction to decide the Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 along with Application for setting aside order dated 23.12.2019 passed in S.A. expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is received. It is made clear that we have not entered into the merits of the matter and the Learned DRT would in no manner be influenced by any observations made in the body of the judgment. The parties are directed to appear before the Learned DRT-2 Hyderabad on 10th August, 2026 for hearing. Learned DRT should ensure that no unnecessary adjournment is granted to either of the parties.

No Order as to costs.

File be consigned to Record Room.

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

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of July, 2026.