1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 29.09.2009 passed in Misc. Civil Application 183 of 2007, whereby the said application was rejected and the order dated 29.07.2011 passed by respondent no. 1.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner had availed some financial facilities from the respondent Bank and on account of default in repayment of the same, respondent no. 2 Bank initiated recovery proceedings by way of Summary Suit No. 1754 of 2002 against the petitioner as well as the guarantors. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had filed an application for leave to defend before the Board of Nominees. The learned Board of Nominees vide order dated 27.11.2002 allowed the said application of leave to defend with a direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum equivalent to 20% of the claim amount filed by the respondent Bank. However, since the petitioner was unable to deposit the said amount, the learned Board of Nominees vide order dated 23.05.2003 directed respondent Bank for recovery of the amount in question.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no. 1. It is the case of the petitioner that since there was delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner preferred delay condonation application. However, the said application came to be rejected vide order dated22.09.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner filed restoration application being Misc. Application No. 183 of 2007, which came to be rejected vide order 29.07.2011. Hence, this petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. From the record, it appears that respondent no. 1 has not entertained the appeal on the ground of delay. If we consider the period of delay, which about four years and the facts on record, I am of the view that the delay ought to have been condoned in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1353, wherein it has been held that in the matters pertaining to delay the Courts should take a lenient view.
5. In view of the above, the order dated 29.09.2009 passed in Misc. Application No. 183 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. The concerned respondent authority shall proceed with the hearing of the appeal preferred by the petitioner and decide the same on merits, in accordance with law, after considering the delay caused in filing the same. Before the appeal is taken up for hearing, the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.7,500/ [Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only] towards costs within a period of 15 days. The concerned respondent authority shall decide the appeal within a period of one year from the date of receipt of writ of this order. It is, however, made clear that this Court has quashed the order passed by the respondent authority not on merits and therefore, while deciding the matter afresh, the concerned respondent authority shall not be influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its earlier order. This Court has not entered into the merits of the case.
6. With the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/