VIKRAM MEHRA Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 19.4.2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh [for short 'the DRT'] by which IA No.769 of 2005 filed in APRR No.03 of 2017, seeking condonation of delay of 285 days in filing the securitization application, has been dismissed and consequently APRR No.03 of 2017 has also been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the petitioners have claimed that they are the joint owners of an immoveable property measuring 3 kanal 18 marla falling in khasra Nos.3180/2356/5 and 3181/2356/5, bearing plot No.446-D-XIV, known as 'Alka Kothi', situated at Macleod Road, Amritsar. They came to know that the said property is under sale by way of Court auction because some part of it was mortgaged by respondent No.4 with respondent No.2 and in default of payment of the amount of loan, recovery suit filed by respondent No.2 bearing OA No.366/2000 (old No.260/1998) against respondent No.4 was allowed by the DRT on 04.10.2001 and the Recovery Officer-II, DRT, Chandigarh has passed the order of the sale of the property in question. The petitioners made an application for setting aside the notice of sale but it was dismissed on 31.10.2002. The petitioners challenged that order by way of an appeal before the DRT, Chandigarh but it was dismissed on account of non-appearance on 21.03.2003. However, an application filed by the petitioners for recalling of the said order was allowed and the Appeal No.32/2002 was restored but in the meanwhile, the sale of the property in dispute was confirmed by the Recovery Officer on 04.04.2003 and the sale certificate was issued on 07.04.2003. The petitioners withdrew their appeal in order to challenge the order of Recovery Officer but it is alleged that due to wrong advice the appeal was filed before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi [for short 'the DRAT'] which was returned on 21.1.2004 on account of the fact that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal against the orders dated 4.4.2003 and 7.4.2003 before the DRT, Chandigarh along with an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [for short the 'Act of 1963'] for condonation of delay of 285 days. The said application was contested by respondent No.2 by way of a reply and vide impugned order dated 19.4.2018, the application for condonation of delay bearing IA No.769/2005 was dismissed on the ground that the DRT-I, Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to consider the application filed under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.16963 of 2017 titled as "Indium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Doha Bank QSC and another" decided on 24.10.2017.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even if the application under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 was not maintainable and the period prescribed for filing of the appeal could not have been extended by assigning the sufficient cause in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd. (Supra), the petitioners could have been given the advantage of Section 14 of the Act of 1963 because they were pursuing their remedy before a Court having no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of "State of Goa vs. M/s Western Builders" 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 475.