AJIT I PATEL Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the Order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Hyderabad, in dismissing the petition to condone the delay of 82 days in filing the Review Petition, the appeal is preferred.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submits that after the disposal of the Original Application (OA) by the PO, DRT, there was some problem between the appellants and their Counsel and the Counsel did not return all the papers to the appellants and the appellants had to get certified copies of papers and then they had to take steps for filing in review petition and so the delay of 82 days had occurred in filing the Review petition and the delay must be condoned. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that what all stated in the Review petition are only appealable in the Appellate Court and further, there is no sufficient and proper reason given for condoning the delay of 82 days in filing the Review petition. He further submitted that for the outstanding due to the Bank, Suit was filed in the Civil Court in the year 1992 and after the formation of DRT the Suit was transferred to the DRT and there it was taken up and final Order was passed. After passing of the final Order on 8.4.2002, the appellants defendants filed petition to review the final Order along with a petition to condone the delay of 82 days in filing the Review Petition and the PO, DRT, dismissed that petition as there was no sufficient ground to condone the delay.

(3.) FINAL Order was passed in the OA on 8.4.2002. After passing of the final order the defendants filed petition to condone the delay of 82 days in filing the petition to review the final Order. In his Order dated 9.9.2002, the PO, DRT, has observed that no sufficient cause for not filing the petition in time is established and the failure on the part of the Counsel to return the case bundle, the time taken by the petitioners in fixing a new Counsel and to file a petition arc reasons which do not reflect the bona fides of the petitioners and will never in any way tantamount to a sufficient cause. He has further observed that the delay of 82 days has not at all been explained and it is a well settled principle of law that each day of delay should be explained on a day-to-day basis and the petition is bereft of any such explanation and the petition is devoid of merits and the PO, DRT, has dismissed that petition. The PO, DRT, has stated in his Order that no sufficient and proper reason is given for condoning the delay.