AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellants filed S.A. bearing no.45/2017 titled as Suresh Chand Sharma V. State Bank of India & others which was stated to be pending before DRT, Jaipur. DRT Jaipur vide order dated 01.09.2022 dismissed the S.A. on the ground of limitation. It is reflecting from the impugned order dated 01.09.2022 that the DRT has observed that the appellants have not disputed the demand notice dated 13.07.2015, publication of possession notice dated 14.09.2015 and thereafter publication of auction notice dated 05.01.2016. The main contention of the appellants is that the sale certificate was executed on 31.03.2016 but the appellants came to know about the issuance of the sale certification on 25.12.2016. Although there was a delay of 290 days in filing the S.A., the contention is that if the limitation is reckoned from the date of knowledge, the S.A. was filed within the limitation. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the respondents no.4 to 10 before DRT have committed fraud on the appellants and mortgaged the property and the appellants were not aware about the mortgage of the property which was auctioned in favour of respondent no.3 before DRT. In these circumstances, the appellants prayed that the impugned order dated 01.09.2022 be set aside.
It is reflecting from the impugned order dated 01.09.2022 that the appellants were having knowledge about demand notice dated 13.07.2015 and publication of possession notice dated 14.09.2015. The appellants were also aware of publication of auction notice dated 05.01.2016. The appellants did not file S.A. being aggrieved by the possession notice dated 14.09.2015, but preferred to file S.A. to challenge the auction which was stated to be conducted on 05.02.2016. DRT, Jaipur after considering all the relevant facts has opined that S.A. was filed beyond the period of limitation and was barred by limitation. The appellants cannot take shelter under the fact they were not having knowledge of the auction notice dated 05.01.2016. They preferred to file S.A. to challenge the auction which was conducted on 05.02.2016. The S.A. was required to be filed within 45 days.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 01.09.2022 which warrants interference by this Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.