Dismissed

Mr Manoj Prabhulal Jain v. Canara Bank

DRT17 Oct 2025MA/96/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application for condonation of a 78-day delay in filing a Misc. Application for restoration. The Court found the explanation regarding listing errors and communication gaps unconvincing and insufficient to justify the delay.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay (M.A. No.96 of 2025) was dismissed as the explanation for the 78-day delay was found unconvincing and lacking cogent reasons.

Mr Manoj Prabhulal Jain versus Canara Bank — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2025)

¶1

17.10.2025	Exh	*Roznama-MDRT-II* *M.A. No.96 of 2025*	Next date
		Ms Dimple Tejani and Ms Aarti Singh i/b Mr Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr Yash Naik i/b Ms Shradha Agarwal, Advocate for Respondent No.1. None for Respondent No.2. The Applicant has preferred this Misc. Application for Condonation of delay of 78 days in filing Misc. Application for restoration of Application under Section 17 being S.A. No.284 of 2025. Ld. Advocate submitted when the matter came up for hearing on 16.06.2025, Ld. Advocate requested the Tribunal to list the matter on 19.06.2025 and was also under impression that the matter would be listed on 19.06.2025 but instead the matter was listed on 17.06.2025 and the Ld. Advocate being unaware did not appear on 17.06.2025 and the matter was adjourned to 27.06.2025 for dismissal. Thereafter, the Applicant under impression of the matter being listed on 19.06.2025 searched the cause list of 19.06.2025 but could not find his matter being listed and informed his Advocate of record of the same and when

¶2

Page 1 of 3

¶3

the matter came up for hearing on 27.06.2025, the Applicant or the Advocate on record could not remain present due to communication gap between them and the S.A. No.284 of 2025 was dismissed for non-prosecution. Ld. Advocate submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and was due to Bonafide reason beyond Applicant’s control that the Applicant could not file S.A. in time and hence, prays that the delay may be condoned.

¶4

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent opposed and argued that the copy supplied to the Respondent Bank by the Applicant does not even mention the number of days of delay caused and also no reason or any proper explanation is being mentioned why the delay was caused.

¶5

Heard both sides. Perused the Record.

¶6

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H. Guruswamy & Ors Versus A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs dated 02.04.2024 observed that while considering an application to condone delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. It owes a duty first to ascertain the Bonafides’ of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation.

¶7

Page 2 of 3

¶8

However, it is clear from the perusal of the record that the Applicant has not mentioned the reason or given any proper explanation as to why the delay of 78 days was caused to file the Misc. Application for restoration of S.A. No.284 of 2025 which was dismissed for nonprosecution. The argument of Ld. Advocate for the Applicant that S.A. No.284 of 2025 was listed on 17.06.2025 instead of 19.06.2025, so the Applicant could not follow the matter is not acceptable because the next date was fixed on 27.06.2025 and all the order-sheets were uploaded. The delay shown due to so-called communication gap is also not convincing and there are no cogent reasons & explanations for the delay.

¶9

In the above facts and circumstances, M.A. No.96 of 2025 is dismissed accordingly.

¶10

File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.

¶11

Sd/- Closed P.O. nrb - 12 DRT-II

¶12

Page 3 of 3

Mr Manoj Prabhulal Jain v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Manoj Prabhulal Jain v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Jitendra Kumar Soni versus Punjab National Bank

Nikhila Devdutt Deshpande versus Hdfc Bank

Minaxi Jyotiraj Tandel versus Sammaan Finserve Limited

Anita Laxman Thota versus Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Puneet Cars Sales Private Limited

Bank of India versus Techmet Global India