Condonation of delay is permissible when the applicant was not impleaded in the original proceedings and had no knowledge of the impugned order, constituting sufficient cause.

2. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 places the Vakalatnama. The same is taken on record.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit that an application for amendment of the Memo of Parties has been filed for substituting the legal heirs of deceased Respondent No. 4; that, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were the original lending Banks; that, the secured asset was sold in auction and was subsequently purchased by the Applicant from the auction purchaser; that, Respondent No. 4 has expired; that, his legal heirs are required to be brought on record.

Therefore, the amendment application needs to be allowed.

4. Not objected to by the Respondents present.

5. Accordingly, the I.A. Diary No. 1316/2026 is allowed. The Applicant is directed to file amended Memo of Parties.

6. Heard on the I.A. No. 387/2026 filed for condonation of delay.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit that there is a delay of 2,991 days in filing the present appeal and prays for its condonation.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant would further submit that the delay occurred as the Applicant was never impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the Learned DRT, Pune, nor was any notice of those proceedings ever served upon him; that, the Applicant had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the pendency of the proceedings or the impugned order passed therein; that, the impugned order directly affects the rights and interests of the Applicant, who is a subsequent purchaser of the secured asset from the auction purchaser.

He would further submit that the Applicant came to know of the existence of the impugned order only upon receipt of a notice dated 15.04.2026 issued by the Office of the Tahsildar, Pandharpur, proposing mutation in the revenue records in respect of Land Property No. 826/1B, Village Wakhari, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur and It was only through the said notice that the Applicant became aware of the impugned order. Accordingly, the delay occurred solely on account of the Applicant’s lack of knowledge of the impugned order.

9. Prima facie, the above submissions disclose that there was no negligence on the part of the Applicant and that sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of the delay in filing the present appeal.

10. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 would fairly concede that the Applicant was never impleaded as a party in the proceedings initiated before the Learned DRT, Pune.

She would submit that she has no instructions as to whether Respondent No. 1/Borrower has initiated any proceedings for mutation in respect of Land Property No. 826/1B, Village Wakhari, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur.

She would concede that the Applicant, being the subsequent purchaser, was never a party to any stage of the litigation initiated either by Respondent No. 1 or by the Bank in respect of the secured asset.

11. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 would submit that they have no objection to allow the delay condonation application.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, I.A. No. 387/2026 is allowed. The delay of 2,991 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The Registry is directed to register the appeal, if otherwise found to be in order.

13. In the meanwhile, the Respondents are directed to maintain status quo and not to create any third-party rights or interests in respect of the subject property till the next date of hearing

14. The Respondents shall file their reply/objections, if any, to the interim application and the grounds of appeal within four weeks wi