IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.5585 OF 2018 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMIN BANK BUDAGUMPA GANGAVATHI TALUK-583231 KOPPAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMEEN BANK R & L SECTION, HO: BELLARY … PETITIONER (BY SRI T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI SHRAVANAPPA KENDAD S/O KARIAPPA KENDAD 2. SRI SHIV KUMAR BAZAR S/O LINGAPPA BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BUDAGUMPA, GANGAVATHI TALUK KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATASATYANARAYAN A., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 &R-2 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, KARNATAKA-I ON 26.08.2017 IN I.A.1528/2017 AND IR NO.1196/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND RESTORE THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IR NO.5068/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL–I, BENGALURU.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri T.P.Muthanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Venkatasatyanarayan A., learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 26.08.2017 by which the application in IA No.1528/2017 filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 8 days in filing IR No.1196/2017 before Debts Recovery Tribunal-I and I.R.No.1196/2017 have been dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the office objections could not be complied within the time stipulated as the Branch of the petitioner-Bank was shifted. In this connection, a personal affidavit of the Manager of the Bank was also filed before the Tribunal. However, the aforesaid averments have not been taken into account and it has been held that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 8 days in compliance with the office objections has been made out, and hence, the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Consequently, IR No.1196/2017 filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. It is further submitted by him that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner to comply with the office objections.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides.
7. The original application in IR No.5068/2016 was dismissed on 10.03.2017 for non-compliance of office objections. Thereafter, an application was filed seeking to recall the order on 17.04.2017. However, there was a delay of 8 days in filing the application seeking recall of the order dated 10.03.2017. The reason for recall which was assigned in the affidavit was that since the Branch of the Bank was shifted, there was a delay of 8 days. In the considered opinion of this Court sufficient case was made out for restoration of the original application. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that sufficient cause should receive liberal construction so as to advance the cause of justice. The Tribunal has taken a hyper technical view of the matter. Therefore, taking into account fact situation of the case instead of relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy, the impugned order dated 26.08.2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bengaluru is hereby quashed and the original application in IR No.5068/2016 filed by the petitioner is restored to file.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.