AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present as under: Mr. Sunil Humbre along with Ms. Mumtaz Khan, Counsel for Appellants. Mr. Alok Mishra, Counsel for Respondent.
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of praecipe filed by the Appellants for seeking urgent relief.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants would submit that M.A. No. 59/2026 has been filed seeking restoration of Misc. Appeal No. 114/2025 which was dismissed for default on 03.08.2026.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants would further submit that on 03.08.2026, neither the Appellants nor the Respondent was present and, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for default. He would further submit that on 03.08.2026, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants through VC from Ahmedabad could not mark his presence due to a technical glitch at the end of the Appellants.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank would vehemently oppose the application for restoration of the Misc. Appeal.
Considered and perused the record.
The reason stated for seeking restoration of the appeal is sufficiently explained.
Accordingly, M.A. No. 59/2026 is allowed and Misc. Appeal No. 114/2025 stands restored.
At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants would press I.A. No. 449/2025 seeking stay of the operation of the impugned order and maintain the status quo in respect of the property in question.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank would submit that he wants to file a reply to the said application.
In reply, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants would submit that the Respondent Bank has issued a notice for taking possession of the property on 27.09.2026, which is a Sunday.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank would submit that he would file a reply to the application and that the application ought not to be allowed without granting an opportunity to file the reply.
However, if possession of the property is taken on 27.09.2026, before the next working day of this Appellate Tribunal, the present application may become infructuous before the reply is filed on record by the Respondent Bank.
In these circumstances, this Appellate Tribunal is of the considered view that in order to avoid prejudice to the Appellants, the Respondent Bank is directed to maintain status quo in respect of the property in question and shall not take possession thereof till the next date of hearing.
List the case on 17.12.2026 for further proceedings.