1. Mr. Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Paramkusham Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner which is an asset reconstruction company in the instant petition has assailed the validity of the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in I.A.No.130 of 2022 in Dy.No.635 of 2021, by which delay of 280 days in filing the appeal has been condoned.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that respondent No.4 approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad by filing S.A.No.98 of 2019 under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the ‘SARFAESI Act’), being aggrieved by the action taken by the appellant under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The securitization application namely S.A.No.98 of 2019 preferred by respondent No.4 was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad by an order dated 23.09.2019, by which the Debts Recovery Tribunal was pleased to uphold the action of the appellant in invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, respondent No.1 which is neither a borrower nor a guarantor filed O.S.No.648 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the auction purchaser namely respondent No.3 inter alia on the ground that the auction purchaser be restrained from interfering with the possession of respondent No.1 over the land measuring Acs.16.27 guntas. The trial Court by an order dated 05.02.2020 dismissed the application namely I.A.No.2090 of 2019 for temporary injunction filed by respondent No.1, against which respondent No.1 filed a miscellaneous appeal namely C.M.A.No.5 of 2020 in which no interim order has been passed till date.
4. Thereafter respondent No.1 which is neither a borrower nor a guarantor, filed a writ petition namely W.P.No.18227 of 2020 in which the validity of the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad in S.A.No.98 of 2019 was assailed. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 31.03.2021 granting the liberty to respondent No.1 to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to it in law. Respondent No.1 thereupon filed Special Leave Petition namely S.L.P.No.14115 of 2021 which was withdrawn on 20.10.2021 by respondent No.1.
5. Thereafter respondent No.1 approached the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata against the order dated 23.09.2019 along with an application namely I.A.No.130 of 2022 seeking condonation of delay of 280 days in filing the appeal. The appellant herein filed a response to the aforesaid application. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 16.10.2023 found that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal was condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000.00 which was to be deposited by respondent No.1 within one (1) week. In the aforesaid factual background, this writ petition has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that there was a delay of 798 days in filing the appeal for which no plausible explanation was offered. It is further submitted that the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had no application to the fact situation of the case as the appellant was not a party in the civil suit instituted by respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 had claimed a different relief. It is also pointed out that despite the aforesaid interim order for condoning delay passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, respondent No.1 till today has not deposited the amount of Rs.10,000.00. However, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal instead of dismissing the appeal filed by respondent No.1 has fixed a further date of 01.04.2024. It is also pointed out that appellant has raised several objections with regard to maintainability of the appeal at the instance of respondent No.1 which has not been adverted to so far by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.
8. It is well settled in law that rules of procedure are meant to facilitate the cause of justice and the cause of justice deserves to be preferred over the technicalities. It is equally well settled legal proposition that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ should receive liberal construction to advance the cause of justice and until and unless there is gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides attributable to the parties seeking condonation of delay, such a prayer should not ordinarily be declined (See Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353 and Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar (2013) 12 SCC 645).
9. We have carefully perused the averments made in the application for condonation of delay as well as the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
10. Respondent No.1 cannot be said to be guilty of gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides. Undoubtedly it is true that the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the fact situation of the case do not apply to the appeal filed on behalf of respondent No.1, yet in the facts of the case, bearing in mind the well settled legal principle as well as the fact that expression ‘sufficient cause’ deserves liberal construction, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, a direction is issued to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to consider all objections preferred by the appellant to the maintainability of the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 before proceeding further with the matter.
11. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
