SANJAY KUMAR, J.

1. The Indian Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Hyderabad, the first respondent (hereinafter, the bank), conducted auction sale of Acs.2.16 guntas in Survey No.452/A, Bibinagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, on 21.08.2010, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the SARFAESI Act). Pursuant thereto, sale certificate dated 05.10.2010 was issued by the bank in favour of the auction purchaser, the second respondent herein. The proceedings initiated by the bank under the SARFAESI Act and the resulting sale certificate were sought to be challenged by Porus Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad, the writ petitioner, before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter, the Tribunal) at Hyderabad, in SAIR.No.126 of 2013, filed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

2. The claim of the petitioner company was that it had purchased Acs.2.21 guntas in Survey No.452/A of Bibinagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, in an auction conducted by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (APSFC) and the transaction was registered under sale deed No.4048 of 1998. Thereafter, it purchased 2,336 square yards (Ac.0.19 guntas) abutting the land purchased from the APSFC under registered sale deeds bearing Nos.3807 & 3808 of 2002 and 5829 of 2003. Another extent of Ac.2.13 guntas was purchased by it in Survey Nos.454/A and 353 of Bibinagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, under registered sale deeds bearing Nos. 5852 of 2003, 218 of 2004 and 220 of 2004. The petitioner company claimed that it constructed a compound wall encircling the entire extent of Ac.5.13 guntas purchased by it and established a bulk drug factory therein. While so, the Tahsildar, Bibinagar Mandal, served notice dated 16.06.2012 upon the petitioner company proposing to conduct a survey of the land in Survey No.452/A of Bibinagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. This survey was sought to be conducted at the behest of the bank, but the same was not within the knowledge of the petitioner company. The petitioner company made enquiries with the Tahsildars office, but to no avail. It then filed W.P.No.20555 of 2012 before this Court assailing the proposed survey to be conducted by the Tahsildars office. At that stage, the bank got impleaded in the said writ petition and staked a claim over the land in Survey No.452/A of Bibinagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, under a mortgage, stating that recovery proceedings had been initiated by it on the strength thereof. The petitioner company claims that it was only then that it came to know of the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the bank and the sale held by it in the year 2010.

3. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner company filed the subject securitization application in SAIR.No.126 of 2013 before the Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. However, as the said provision requires such an application to be filed within 45 days from the date of the impugned measure taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner company sought condonation of the delay on its part in filing the said SA. This petition was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity, the Act of 1963), seeking condonation of the delay of 883 days in filing the SA and was numbered as I.A.No.1115 of 2013 therein. By order dated 24.02.2014, the Tribunal dismissed the said petition.

4. Perusal of this order reflects that the point for consideration, as framed by the Tribunal, was whether the delay of 883 days in filing the SA could be condoned under Section 5 of the Act of 1963. The Tribunal opined that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1963 could be invoked for the purpose of extending time but sufficient cause must necessarily be shown therefor. The vital question, per the Tribunal, was whether the petitioner company had properly explained the