The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application filed by petitioners to condone a delay of 1721 days in filing a set-aside petition against an ex-parte order. The court found they deliberately refused service of summons. (Thin order)
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPETMBER,2022
PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
IA.No.131/2022
IN oA.No.30,/2017
Petitioners/ Defendants 4 & 5.
Versus
Respondent/ Applicant.
o--.- B. Sudhakar Reddy, aged 44 yrs.,
/ 8. sriS sharaiSt{qmar, I Aged Major, H.[{\2-38l 1, Thigul Village, ^ g 0 $affFeqeyrMaiftl,Medak District. S, + r::r::1":::t1:7 "j'*" not necessary
Respondents/ Defendants 1-3 & 6.
lA.No.131/2022
Counsel for the Petitioners : Counsel for Respondent No.1 :
Sri D. Bhanu Pratap. Sri V. Sethumadhau a Rao.
-:ORDERi
- This application is fiIed by the Petitioners/Defendants No.4 & 5, u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of l,T2I days in filing set-aside petition in OA.No.30/20 1 7.
) In the affidavit filed by Petitioner/ Defendant No.4, she averred that she was shocked and surprised to receive the notice in RP.No.843/2017 and that she has not received any summons in the OA but, she came to know that she and petitioner/Defendant No.S were set ex-parte in OA on 08.05.2017. She further came to know that she and Petitioner/Defendant No.S were set ex-parte as the summons sent to them were returned with endorsement ."Refused". There is a delay of 1721 days in filing set-aside application and the said delay is neither intentional nor deliberate.
J.
This application is resisted by the lst Respondent/Bank by filing its Counter, contending that the summons sent to the petitioners/ Defendants No.4 & 5 got returned with endorsement asuRefused" and so they were set ex-parte and ex-parte final order was passed in the OA on 25.O5.2OI7 . The Petitioners have not explained day-to-day delay in filing the application to condone the delay of lZ2I days and there are not merits in the application.
reasonable or days in filing o an aipplication to set-aside the ex-parte final order i q ,.,7 0 9 sEP frfP5.o6.2o17, passed in the oA? ,?t:
'd.fp;l*oeBM."'Ii'r' Eiwv
lA.No.131/2022
Polnt No.ll):-
Polnt No.(lllt
(Dctated to the Priuate Sectetdry, traftscribed. by hint cotrected., signed and. pronouftced by me in the open couti otl
this the gh daA of September, 2022).
sd/-
l'* ..-,h<br>(G. GOPTCHAND)
Presiding Ofllcer
<br>ll [**
llcl
O9 SEP MD
!dr!
r[d- , rRuE(ffiql
%,1
,#r$f''if;"^'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether delay of 1721 days in filing a set-aside application warrants condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act given refusal of service.
Whether the court should dismiss the application for condonation of delay.
Whether the petitioners have established sufficient cause for the inordinate delay.
Smt Battu Saroja
Sri Battu Malla Reddy
Corporation Bank
M/s. Sri Sai Dairy Farms
Sri Battu Sudhakar Reddy
Smt Battu Kavitha
GUMMADI GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
