JAYANT PATEL, J. The petitioner by this petition is seeking appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the DRAT, Mumbai, whereby it has been held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the proceedings under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Securitisation Act') and therefore, the Tribunal which had earlier rejected the application for condonation of delay is directed to consider the matter in light of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 17 of the Securitisation Act.

2. Heard Mr. Khare for Mr. Sankhla for the petitioner and Mr. Shukla with Mr. Jani for the respondent No.3 by caveat.

3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') is not a Court and as the Limitation Act applies to the Court, the provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply to the proceedings before the Tribunal, therefore, DRAT has committed error apparent on the face of record in taking view that Section 5 of th