The Tribunal dismissed the Minor Appeal seeking condonation of 3 days delay in filing an appeal against a recovery order. The court held Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to appeals under Section 30 of the RDB Act, 1993.
M.A. No.1 of 2026 stands dismissed; Appeal (D) No.1855 of 2025 be registered after due compliance.
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.
| 19.06.2026 | Exh. | Roznama-MDRT-II M.A. No.1 of 2026 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr D.A. Joshi and Mr Chinmay Joshi, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr Navin Arora, Advocate for Respondent. |
|||
| The Applicant has preferred this M.A. for condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the Appeal bearing (D) No.1855 of 2025 against R.P. No.144 of 2016. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that Applicant came to know about the said proceeding when the Respondent affixed the notice on the outer portion of the disputed flat. The Appellant then filed Intervention Application in DRT. The said application was heard on merit and finally rejected on 14.10.2025. Feeling aggrieved by the said rejection order, the Applicant initially presented the Appeal before DRAT u/s. 30 of SARFAESI Act under wrong impression that when the order is u/s. 29, the Appeal lies to DRAT against the said rejection order. However, the registry of DRAT advised the Applicant to file Appeal with PO of DRT. Thus, there is technical delay of 3 days in withdrawing & resubmitting the Appeal to appropriate forum. Ld. Advocate further submitted that the delay due to wrong forum is condonable under explanation to Sec 5 of the limitation Act, 1963. Hence, M.A. No.1 of 2026 should be allowed. Ld. Advocate for Respondent opposed and |
Page 1 of 3
| rst - 07 | submitted that the Applicant failed to establish any legitimate “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The plea of choosing a wrong forum (DRAT) due to advocate error is a tactical move to buy time and delay lawful recovery. The legal or negligence does not pause limitation thresholds. Hence, M.A. No.1 of 2026 should be rejected. Heard Ld. Advocate for the parties in M.A. No.01 of 2026. Perused the record. It is pertinent to note that in case the aggrieved person wants to prefer an Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer under Section 30 of RDB Act, 1993, the period of 30 days is specifically mentioned. The provision of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 for extension of that prescribed period is not applicable in that matter. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, M.A. No.1 of 2026 stands dismissed. Appeal (D) No.1855 of 2025 be registered after due compliance. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
Closed |
|---|
Page 2 of 3
| 19.06.2026 | Exh. | Roznama-MDRT-II M.A. No.1 of 2026 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr D.A. Joshi and Mr Chinmay Joshi, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr Navin Arora, Advocate for Respondent. Later on, After uploading of order in M.A. No.1 of 2026, it has come to the notice of this Tribunal that the sentence i.e., “Appeal (D) No.1855 of 2025 be registered after due compliance” is wrongly mentioned as M.A. No.1 of 2026 is dismissed. So, the above sentence is deleted from that order. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. |
|||
| rst - 07 | Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
Closed |
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in filing appeal is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to appeals against orders under Section 30 of RDB Act, 1993.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Applicant
Respondent
P.O.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
