SHAIDUL ISLAM Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE whole kit and caboodle of facts and figures that stood transpired from the records as well as from the arguments advanced on both sides could succinctly and precisely be set out thus - -

(2.) CHALLENGING and impugning the said order one Saidul Islam filed this appeal with delay, claiming to be an intervenor in the application before the Lower Tribunal. In respect of the factual matrix, this Appellate Tribunal is not concerned with, at present, in view of the point to be decided as to whether DRAT could condone the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act or not. The reasons found set out in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to the effect that there was delay on the part of the petitioner/appellant's Advocate in preferring the appeal as there were intervening holidays for the High Court and the District Court due to Durga Puja. The number of days delay also is not found set out in the application.

(3.) SECTION 29(2) of the Limitation Act is applicable to all Courts as well as the Tribunals having the power to adjudicate causes. The DRAT is not a mere persona designata. DRATs functioning under the RDDBFI Act are virtually exercising the powers of Civil Court in adjudicating the causes before them. Hence, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to such proceedings.