The Court held that the law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.

Soumen Sen, J.

1. The order of rejection of the application for condonation of delay of 7 years 11 months and 19 days by the guarantor petitioner in preferring an appeal against the order dated 29th July, 2003 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “DRT) in O.A. No.131 of 2001 is the subject-matter of challenge in this revisional application.

2. The learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as “DRAT”) rejected the said application observing that the explanation and reason given for delay does not inspire the confidence of the Tribunal.

3. The petitioners are the guarantors. The petitioners duly contested the original recovery proceeding initiated under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “RDB” Act). The certificate was issued on 6th August, 2003. Immediately thereafter execution proceeding was initiated. A period little short of three years from the date of issuance of certificate, the guarantors on April 5, 2006 filed an application before the learned Recovery Officer contending that the said Officer has no jurisdiction to execute the said certificate. Subsequently, on 13th July, 2006, the petitioners took out another inter alia application before the learned Presiding Officer under Section 19(25) of the RDB Act praying, inter alia, for an order of injunction restraining the Recovery Officer from proceeding with the execution of the certificate. On 20th March, 2007, the petitioners applied before the Recovery Officer questioning its jurisdiction to proceed against one of the properties which is situated at Jharkhand. The Presiding Officer refused to grant any stay in connection with the application filed on 13th July, 2006 and by a subsequent order dated 12th April, 2007, the said application for stay of execution was rejected. Against the order of the Presiding Officer in dismissing the application for stay of the execution proceeding, an appeal was affirmed by the DRAT on 12th June, 2008. The said order of the DRAT was unsuccessfully challenged in a revisional application in this Court on 21st July, 2008. The revisional application was dismissed on 16th July, 2009. A special leave petition was filed on 10th September, 2009 against the said order of dismissal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court admitted the said special leave petition and granted an order of stay of recovery proceedings. The petitioner contended that during the pendency of the special leave petition in or about December 20, 2010 the petitioner during consultation with the Senior Counsel was advised to challenge the judgment and order dated 29th July, 2003 before the learned Appellate Tribunal and upon receiving such advice, steps were taken to file the appeal with a prayer for condonation of delay. The said application was filed in 2011 and the delay between December 20, 2010 and May, 2011 was sought to be explained by stating that after receiving advice during consultation one of the guarantors, namely, Mr. Nabarun Bhattacharyya felt serious ill and as such he could not contact the learned Advocate for the petitioner between December 20, 2010 and May, 2011. It was only on 26th May, 2011 he could give instruction to his learned Advocate for drafting and filing the said appeal. Such appeal was filed after reopening the Court after summer vacation in June, 2011. This is the explanation in substance for condonation of delay of 7 years 6 months and 19 days (although in the petition the delay is mentioned as of 7 years and 11 months). It is an admitted fact that till the filing of the special leave petition in the year 2010, the petitioner did not feel it necessary to prefer an appeal against the certificate. The said certificate was issued on contested hearing. The petitioner was aware of the said judgment and certificate but did not prefer an appeal within the period of 45 days from the date on which a copy of the said order made or de