ORDER :

1. In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, quashing the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal I at Bangalore in Diary No. 1985/2019 (vide Annex-O).

(ii) Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, quashing the order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the 24th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore in Crl. Misc. No. 04/2019 (Vide Annex-J).

(iii) Direction against the respondent to strictly adhere to the One Time Settlement dated 25.09.2019 (Vide Annex-G).

(iv) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed on I.A. No. 2655/2019 in D. No. 1985/2019 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I(for short ‘the DRT’) Bangalore, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 was dismissed by the Tribunal, which also dismissed the main petition under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that petitioners filed the instant application/appeal in D. No. 1985/2019 against respondent-Bank seeking setting aside of the order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the 24th ACMM at Bangalore in Crl. Misc. No. 4/2019 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as well as the order passed under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Along with the said application/appeal, the petitioners also filed an application I.A. No. 2655/2019 under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the application/appeal. Both the application for condonation of delay and the main application/appeal having been opposed by respondent-Bank, the DRT, Bangalore proceeded to pass the impugned order by not only rejecting the application for condonation of delay but also dismissed the main application/appeal, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned order, in order to point out that having come to the conclusion that the delay in filing the application/appeal cannot be condoned, the DRT clearly committed an error in proceeding to reject the main application/appeal on merits, which is impermissible in law. It was submitted that the DRT committed an error in holding that Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT was not applicable and cannot be invoked by the petitioners, since it was not permissible for Tribunals to extend and condone the delay in filing the instant appeal/application. It was also submitted that the delay in filing the instant application/appeal was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause and the DRT committed an error in refusing to condone the delay of 45 days by passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank as well as learned counsel for the auction purchaser jointly submits that the DRT was truly justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the application/appeal by passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference in the present petition. It is also submitted that the respondent-Bank brought the properties to sale during the pendency of the present petition and since the third party rights have already been created, the question of granting any relief to the present petitioners in the present petition would not arise.

7. By way of reply, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that having regard to the undisputed fact that the sale in favour o