Allowed

Smt. Kumari Sushma Devi alias Shsma Kumari v. Central Bankof India

DRT7 Feb 2025MA/30/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Miscellaneous Application under the RDB Act, the applicant sought restoration of an appeal dismissed for default due to alleged traffic jam. The Presiding Officer found the explanation for delay contradictory and insufficient but set aside the dismissal ordered to provide an opportunity for hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.04.2022 is set aside and Appeal OS/2012 is restored to its original number.

Smt. Kumari Sushma Devi alias Shsma Kumari versus Central… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

DRT, PATNA

MA 30/2023 [0]

Recovery Tribunal, Patna.

¶5

Presiding Officer : Shri KaushalendraYadav

¶6

MA 30 of 2023

¶7

Arising out of Appeal OS/2012

¶8

Smt. Sushma alias Sushma Kumari, Wife of Late Sunil Kumar, Resident of Banker Colony, Chitragupta Nagar, Kankarbagh, Police Station - Kankarbagh, Patna - 800020

¶9

.........Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

I. Central Bank of India, Maurya Lok Complex, Dakbunglow Road, Patna - 800001.

¶12

Smt. Puja Khatri, Wife of Shri Arun Kumar, Resident of Arwal Sipah, P.O. and P.S.- Arwal, District - Arwal.

¶13

--Respondents

¶14

Present:

¶15

For the Applicant : Sh.Prabhat Kumar,Advocate For the Respondents : None

¶16

Dated: 07.02.2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Misc. application has been filed by the applicant under section 19(i) (g) of the RDB Act restoration of Appeal 05 of 2012 which was dismissed for default on 18.04.2022. Alongwith Misc. Application the applicant has also filed Limitation Petition for condonation of delay.

¶19

On the point of limitation it hasbeen stated that.

¶20

It has been pleaded by the Id. counsel of the applicant that due to heavyTraffic Jamon 18.04.2022he was struck on the road, therefore could not attend the Court in time. Accordingly, the case was dismissedfor default on 18.04.2022.

¶21

It is further submitted that the applicant has received the copy of order dated 18.04.2022on 22.12.2022 and the present MA has been filed on 28.12.2022. Hence, the delay, if any, happened

~n-N(

DRT, PATNA

MA 30/2023 [0]

cannot be construed on the part of the applicant. The absence of the counsel was not willful/deliberate. The applicant will suffer irreparable loss if the Appeal is not restored. Hence,the present MA may be allowed and Appeal OS/2012 be restored to its original number.

¶27

Despite service of notice, the respondents neither appeared in the matter nor filed its reply.

¶28

Considered the submission of the applicant and the affidavit filed in support of the application.

¶29

The applicant of the present case has prayed for the restoration of Appeal OS/2012 which was dismissed for default on 18.04.2022. It has been pleaded that due to heavytraffic jam the counsel of the applicant could not attend the Court on 18.04.2022 therefore; the case was dismisseddue to non-prosecution.

¶30

There is no proper explanation for delay in filing present MA. The only plea is that the copy of order dated 18.4.2022 was received by the applicant on 22.12.2022 while the copy of impunged order annexed by the applicant with MA discloses that the said order was delivered to the applicant's counsel on 16.07.2022 which shows contrary statement of the applicant. Sothe delay cannot be considered.

¶31

In view of the above discussion the application although there is no sufficient ground to allow this application, however considering the fact that the delay caused for this reason will not favour the applicant however, in order to provide opportunity of hearing on merits, the order dated 18.04.2022 is hereby set asideand Appeal OS/2012 is restored to its original number.

¶32

Put up on 07.04.2025 for hearing.

¶33

Let the copy of order be sent to the parties concerned and also be uploaded on the website of the Tribunal.

¶34

\41'''/ [Kaushalendra Yadav 1 Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna Date: 07.02.2025

Smt. Kumari Sushma Devi alias Shsma Kumari v. Central Bankof India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kumari Sushma Devi alias Shsma Kumari v. Central Bankof India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maha Durga Charitable Trust Society versus Union Bank of India

Maha Durga Charitable Trust versus Union Bank of India

Mahadurga Charitable Trust Society and Ors. versus Union Bank of India

Uco Bank versus Ms Raj Rajeshwari Fules

State Bank of India versus M/s Happy Agency

Sosamma Varghese versus State Bank of India