Allowed

Smt. Nirupama v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited

DRT29 Oct 2025MA/1/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal set aside an ex parte final decree obtained against deceased persons and condoned a delay of 1762 days in filing the application to set it aside because the decree was obtained against dead persons (except for one respondent regarding the later death of the father).

What did the court decide?

Condoned delay of 1762 days; set aside ex parte order dated 16.08.2018 in OA No.168/2013; IA No.1612/2023 allowed.

Smt. Nirupama versus Asset Reconstruction Company… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29rH DAy OF OCTOBER,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

IA.No.1612 ot 2023

and

MA.No.1 of 2025

OA.no.168 of 2O13

Between:

Smt Nirupama,

W/o Late Sri Ashwin Narne, Aged about 39 years, female, No.B-2-5 / B2/A/55, road no.8, Plot no,55,^jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶12

(presently residing at

¶13

Flat no.505, Vyjayanthi Sonnets, lubilee Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500 084.

¶14

Petitioner/

¶15

Legal heir of Defendants no.14 & 15

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited,

¶18

Having its regd office at the Ruby, 1Oth floor, 29, Senapathi Bapat Marg, Dadar (west) Mumbai - 400 028.

¶19

Branch office at Unit no.207, 2nd flqotia:., -^':,11 Bhuvana towers, S.G. Road, ,,,'^;'.-r.il.:ii '^l:'.::-' SecunderabaO - SOO OOS.^-' ,,11'St^{" "1i.1Yi} Represented by its AuthoriseCfoffiter {.)

¶20

:i d. 2. State Bank of India ii ,-" ,^{,31;i iif5} (Erstwhile State Bank of Patiqld Mid Corporate Branch, r: '.i .t.

¶21

(1A.No.1512/2023 & MA.No.U202s)

¶22

Abids, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶23

Union Bank of India,(E- Andhra Bank) SCF Branch, Khairatabad, Hydera bad, Represented by its Chief Manager

¶24

Union Bank of India, Khairatabad branch, Hyderabad, Rep by its Asst. Gen Manager

¶25

M/s. Sri Lalitha Cement Industries Ltd, Flat no.301 and 304, Summit Apartments, 5-L-LBB/2, 3'd floor, Hill fort road, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶26

Mr. P. Subbaraju, S/o Sri Laxmipathi Raju, Aged major, male,

¶27

Mr. P. Laxmipathi Raju, s/o Sri P. Subba Raju, aged major, male,

¶28

Mr. Naga Jagapathi Raju, s/o Sri Subba Raju, aged major, male,

¶29

Sri Narayana Raju, s/o Sri Appalaraju, aged major, male,

¶30

Smt Madhu Chandra, w/o Sri S. Narayana Raju, S/o Sri Appalaraju, Aged major, female,

¶31

Smt P. Parvathi, w/o Sri P. Subbaraju, aged major, female,

¶32

t2. Smt P. Padmavathi, w/o Sri P. Laxmipathi Raju 2 I ocr 2t[5 subbaraju, aged major, male,

¶33

1. Smt P. Nagamani,

¶34

(1A.NO.1512/2023 & MA.No.U202s)

¶35

w/o Sri P, Nagapathi raju, aged major, female,

¶36

t4. Mr. Venkateshwar Reddy, S/o A. Gopal Reddy, Aged major, male,

¶37

(The respondents no, 6 to 14 are Residing at flat no.301, Rassi Hills View, Manor 1t-4-646/8, A.C. guards, Hyderabad - 500 004.)

¶38

Mr. Gutta Sudheer, Represented by its GPA holder Sri KK Chowdhary, aged major, Male, plot no.31, Lalitha Bloom moon field, Khajaguda Village, Nanakramguda, Serilingampally, Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶39

M/s. Rayudu Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor N. Atchutha Rayudu, aged about Major, male, office at 8-3-167/A/I2, Vikaspur colony, Hyderabad - 500 008.

¶40

t7. Mr. B. Yadagiri s/o Sri B. Balaiah, aged major, male, H.No. 14-1 1-633, Kamatipura Mangalghat road, Hyderabad - 500 002.

¶41

Mr. N. Aswin Kumar (died on 03.t2.2020)

¶42

Mr. N. Anoop Kumar (died on 02.03.2018)

¶43

Respondents/ Defendants

¶44

Counsel for the Parties:

¶45

For the Petitioner Sri B. Sreenivasa Reddy For the Respond Smt P.S.S. Sujatha 1 lr, Reserved on & 01.09.2025 Pronounced on 9.10.202s Uploaded in we

¶46

(lA.NO.r61212023 & MA.No.1/202s)

¶47

COMMON ORDER

¶48

IA.No.1612/2O23:

¶49

This is an application filed to condone the delay of 1762 days in filing an application for setting aside the exparte final order/ decree dated 06.08.2018 in OA.168/2013.

¶50

In the affidavit filed by the Petitioner, she averred that she is the legal heir of Defendants No.14&15 in O.A.168/13 and that the said O.A. was filed for recovery of amounts due from the defendants No.14&15 and others. When the Petitioner was absent at her home on 07.07.2023, some unidentified persons have approached and affixed the warrant of attachment dt.08.06.2023 issued by the Recovery Officer-I, DRT, Hyderabad in RC. No.714l18 in OA 168/2013. Immediately, the Petitioner approached this Hon'ble Tribunal through her counsel and verified the proceedings in the O.A. and found that Defendants No.14&15 received summons and appeared through their counsel and the matter was posted for their written statement. But meanwhile, Defendant No,15 was hospitalized due to heart stroke and Defendant No.14 who is his son was taking care of his father. Ultimately, Defendant No.15 Sri Narne Anoop Kumar, father in law of the Petitioner herein died on 02.03.2018. Subsequently, Defendant No.14,son of late Sri Anoop Kumar and also the alleged guarantor herein also passed away due to cardiac arrest. In the meanwhile, this Tribunal set all the defendants exparte on 28.01,2017 and subsequently, the O.A. was allowed on 16.08.2018. The Applicant banks in the O.A. are having knowledge of the death of Defendant No.15 but without impleading the legal heirs of Defendant No.15, obtained exparte decree in the O.A. and thus, the Applicant Bank in the O.A. obtained a decree against the dead person and also the copy of the final order in the OA. was not served on Defendants No.14&15 and thereby, the petitioner came to know about the proceedings in the O.A. only after the affixture of the warrant of attachment on 07.07.2023. H petition. 44.rN1- :- " ,r.:\ \

¶51

) 1- :- " ,r.:\ \ This appl i0tt is re5iSted byi@\st Respondent by filing counter and it is tbnded that the Pe[itloner herein is the legal heir of Defenda {o.L4q1p.inthe O.A. and that Defendants No,14&15 appea ougfrr their counsel and they failed to file their written

¶52

¶53

(1A.NO.1612/2023 & MA.No.1/2025)

¶54

statement and they were set expafte on 28.0L.2017 and subsequently, O.A,168/13 was allowed on 16.08.2018. Defendant No.15 was died on 02,03.2018 i.e. before the exparte order passed on 16.08.2018 whereas Defendant No.14 was died on 03,12.2020 i.e. after the OA. was allowed. Notice was issued to the Petitioner herein in the recovery proceedings but the said notice was returned unserved with endorsement unclaimed. The Petitioner herein is having knowledge of the proceedings in the O.A. as she filed SA 155/21 on the file of DRT-II, Hyderabad. The Petitioner herein has miserably failed to explain the huge delay of L762 daysin filing the set aside petition. Accordingly, it is prayed to dismiss the I.A.

¶55

MA.no.1/2025:

¶56

This is an application filed to set aside the ex-parte order/ decree dated 16.08.2018 in OA.No.168/2013 against the^petitioner as the legal heir of the defendants no.14 & 15.

¶57

In the affidavit filed by the^petitioner, she reiterated her version as stated in the affidavit filed in IA.No.1612/2013.

¶58

Respondents no.1 to 4 filed counter reiterating the contentions raised in the counter filed in lA.l6L2/2025

¶59

Heard the arguments.

¶60

Now the point for consideration is whether the^petitioner has established any^ground for setting aside the exparte order dated 16. 08. 20 18 i n OA. 168/20 1 3.

¶61

This Tribunal vide order dated 14.05.2024 allowed^the IA.No.1612/2025 by condoning the delay of L762 days in filing the application for setting aside the exparte final order dated 06.08.2018^passed in OA.168/2023.

¶62

Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no, I^{filed Misc.Appeal} No.45/2024 on the file of Hon'ble DRAT, and that the Hon'ble DMT vide order 025 allowed the said appeal and directed this T the condonation application in r"z7i64r',;aro the application for setting aside the rder. i-i * As oerrthe ea s luy by the Hon'ble DRAT, these two ) applica-!ions-a ultaneously.

¶63

t .r"l ',.:...:

¶64

(1A.No.1512/2023 & MA.No.1/2025)

¶65

As perthe record in OA.No.168/13, it is clearthat the said O.A. was filed by Respondent ARC against fifteen defendants. Defendants No,1 to 10 and 13 to 15 were set exparte on 28.01.2017 whereas Defendants No.11 and 12 contested the O.A. and after conducting trial, the O.A. was allowed on 16.08.2018. As per the record, it is further clear that Defendant No.15 is father of Defendant No.14 and there is no dispute regarding the fact that the Petitioner herein is wife of Defendant No.14. Even though, Defendants No.14&15 appeared through their counsel, failed to file their written statement and so they were set exparte on 28.01.2017. There is no dispute regarding the fact that said Sri Narne Anoop Kumar who is Defendant No.15 in the O.A. died on 02.03.2018 and Defendant No.14, Aswin Kumar died on 03.L2.2020. In fact, as per the version of the contesting Respondents herein, the Petitioner herein was impleaded as L.R. of Defendants No.14&15 in the recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondents herein. So as per the record, it is clear that even though Defendant No.15 died on 02.03,2018, the Applicants in the OA, did not initiate any steps for impleading the LRs of deceased Defendant No.15. Without even informing to this Tribunal about the death of defendant No.15 and without impleading the legal heirs of deceased Defendant No.15, the Applicants in the O.A. obtained exparte decree against the Defendant No.15. Had the Applicants in the O.A. impleaded the LRs of deceased Defendant No.15, they would have contested the O.A.168/13.

¶66

There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law that a decree against the dead person is nulllilty and validity of the said decree can be challenged even in the execution proceedings.

¶67

So, in the circumstances, I hold that the decree obtained by the Applicants in O.A.168/13 against Defendant NO.15 after his death is not sustainable. No material is placed by the Respondents herein that the Petitioner herein is having knowledge about the pendency of the O.A. before^passing of final order in the O.A. As the final order in O.A. 168/13 is passed against the dead person, it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the delay of 1762 days caused in filing an application for setting aside the exparte decree in O.A. shall be condoned as thg dec.rSe dt.16.08.2013 is liable to be set aside as one of the d the time of passing final order in the O.A., to a the L.Rs of deceased defendant to B\ contest:,lr}j^ f : Ci-nSidering all the circum6\ nces, I am of the opinion that the expa rtei i#oer ?age8Cdo?ffi . 20 r-g I ssed in OA.168/2013 can be set aside bffidoning the delay q$'i 62 days. In the circumstances, I )i,i.}.,-i.,, -.t:'".:":.,i

¶68

(tA.NO.1612/2023 & MA.No.1/2025)

¶69

hold that both applications filed by the applicant are liable to be allowed.

¶70

In the result, IA.No.161212023 is allowed by condoning the delay of 1762 days.

¶71

MA.No.1/2025 is allowed by setting aside the exparte order dated 16.08.2018 passed in OA.No.168/20L3 against the petitioner as the legal heir of the defendants no.14 and 15.

¶72

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29h day of Oct, 2025)

¶73

sdl-

¶74

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶75

f%
*
,1 2eorrfl6 I
%-d.y

¶76

nnlif l{!'cFp4aao,

Smt. Nirupama v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nirupama v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Discount Pharmacy versus Indian Bank

K Bhavani versus Union Bank of India

K Vijay Kumar versus Union Bank of India

Martha Rajabhadraiah versus Union Bank of India

Srinivasa Enterprises and others versus Icici Bank Limited

Sharvani Industries versus Union Bank of India