The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to applications filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, as the Act does not expressly exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the right to property and ensuring a fair opportunity for the debtor or surety to save their property.

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, dismissing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as not maintainable.

2. I have heard Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Sethuraman, learned counsel for the second respondent-Bank.

3. The second respondent-Bank issued a possession notice dated 110. 2007, under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act). It was followed by a notice of sale inviting tenders dated 212. 2007.

4. On 11. 2008, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, challenging the possession notice dated 110. 2007 as well as the sale notice dated 212. 2007. Since the challenge to the possession notice was not made within 45 days as prescribed by Section 17(1), the petitioners also filed an application in I.A.No.166 of 2008, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal. Without even ordering notice to the second respondent-Bank, the Tribunal dismissed I.A.No.166 of 2008, by an order dated 11. 2008, on the ground that such an application is not maintainable, in the absence of a specific provision in the SARFAESI Act, either empowering the Tribunal to condone the delay or extending the provisions of the Limitation Act to the proceedings. It is against the said order that the petitioners have come up with the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Assailing the order of the Tribunal, Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, did not exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act, expressly and that since the Tribunal is held to have the trappings of a Civil Court, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Union of India Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal {2002 (5) CTC 436}, wherein the Full Bench, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Manguram Vs. Ram Prasad Gondamal {AIR 1976 SC 105} held that the Administrative Tribunals Act and the Rules issued thereunder (particularly Section 22 and Rule 17) do not expressly exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Full Bench held that the provision was applicable to a review application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of R. Balasubramanian, J., in N.M.Palanimuthu Vs. The Commissioner, HR & CE (Admn.) Department {1999 (1) CTC 534}, wherein it was held that the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, did not exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act and that therefore a condone delay petition was maintainable.

6. Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted alternatively that in any event, the application was filed within 45 days from the date of the sale notice and that therefore in so far as the prayer for setting aside the sale notice was concerned, the appeal filed under Section 17 was within the period of limitation. The measures taken under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, constitute a chain of events, each of which provided a part of the cause of action for the appeal and that therefore there was not even a necessity for the petitioners to seek condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 17. In support of his contention that every step taken under Section 13 (4) provided a continuous cause of action, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Indian Overseas Bank Vs. G.S. Rajasekaran.