AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
This application is filed for condoning the delay of 196 days in filing the appeal against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore, dismissing the SA (NDN) No.1369/2024, which was filed along with the condone delay application. Since the condone delay application was rejected, the securitization application was also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants submitted that the petitioners/appellants already filed SA 813/2023 challenging the sale notice and the same is still pending. Petitioners/appellants were informed that there has been no sale of the property and thus, the sale could not be challenged. Petitioners/appellants have genuine reason for filing the SA (NDN) 1369/2024 with the delay of 245 days, however, that was not considered by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore. Therefore, this appeal is filed along with the application for condonation of delay.
In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order was passed on 19.09.2024, but the petitioners/appellants applied for a certified copy of the order on 08.04.2025, the certified copy of the order was delivered on 16.04.2025 and this appeal was filed on 03.05.2025. There is a huge delay in making application for certified copy of the order. She further submitted that in SA 813/2023, this Tribunal passed an order on 31.01.2025 directing the learned Presiding Officer to dispose the said SA, but, it is still pending. Therefore, this condone delay application may be dismissed.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
This Tribunal finds that SA (NDN) No. 1369/2024 was filed with the delay of 245 days and this appeal is filed with the delay of 196 days and therefore, it is clear that the appellant is having an habit of seeking remedy with the delay like original suit, in an application filed under Section 17 of the SARFASI Act, This securitization application also filed out of the prescribed period i.e. 45 days from the date of measures taken. It has been time and again decided that Section 5 of the limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act before DRT. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 92/2026 (The Property Company (P) Limited – Vs. Rohinten Daddy Mazda) held that the Tribunals are not Courts and therefore, the Limitation Act, especially, Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application cannot be entertained.
In such view of the matter, this Tribunal finds that there is no merit in the application for condoning the delay of 196 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, this condone delay application is dismissed resulting in rejection of the appeal. Parties shall bear their own costs.