A stay application is liable to be dismissed if the applicant fails to establish the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, or if there are significant procedural anomalies in the array of parties and failure to serve necessary parties.

1. Present as under:

Mr. Ismail Nasikwala, Counsel for Appellant/Bank.

Mr. S.R. Kakade, Counsel for Respondent No.1 & 2/Purchaser through VC.

2. This case, though listed on 09.12.2026 for hearing, is taken up on a praecipe filed by the Appellant/Bank to press its fresh I.A. No. 519/2026 with the main prayer, inter alia, to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 04.08.2026 passed by the Learned DRT, Pune in I.A. No. 2157/2025 in M.A. No. 37/2025.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Bank would submit that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay vide its order dated 13.08.2026 in Writ Petition No. 10453/2026, has directed that the effect of the order dated 04.08.2026 passed by the DRT, Pune is deferred till 21.08.2026. Therefore, the application may be heard.

4. Heard.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Bank would submit that the impugned order passed by the Learned DRT, Pune, is incorrect and unsustainable in the eye of law, as the same was passed without condoning the delay in filing the appeal; that, Respondent No. 2, whose possession of the property in question has been ordered to be restored, is neither the borrower nor the guarantor and, therefore, has no locus. He would further submit that the Appellant/Bank has a good prima facie case and that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Appellant/Bank.

6. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that another I.A. No. 501/2026 with same prayer, was disposed of by this Appellate Tribunal yesterday i.e. on 20.08.2026. It was observed in this order that Respondent No. 4 was described as a firm, but it was neither stated in the array of parties whether it was a partnership firm or a proprietorship concern nor was the person through whom Respondent No. 4 was being represented was stated. He would further submit that Para No. 6 of the order dated 20.08.2026 passed by this Appellate Tribunal observed that Respondent No. 5 was stated to be deceased, but his legal heir had not been stated in the application. He would further submit that, though, in the present application, Respondent No. 4 has been stated to be a partnership firm and is being represented through its two partners and deceased Respondent No. 5 is stated to be represented through his legal heir Mrs. Manik Amrut Bihani but similar changes in the array of parties in the main appeal have not been carried out by the Appellant/Bank. Therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed on account of the difference in the details of the parties in the application from those in the main appeal. He would further submit that Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have not been served, though they are necessary parties in the present appeal being borrower and mortgagor.

7. In rebuttal, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Bank would submit that no relief is prayed against Respondent Nos. 4 & 5; therefore, they need not be served. However, he would fairly concede at bar that this fact has neither been stated in the memo of appeal nor any Interlocutory Application has been moved seeking exemption from service upon Respondent Nos. 4 & 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Bank would also concede that Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are the borrower and mortgagor.

8. Considered and perused the records.

9. After thoughtful consideration, this Appellate Tribunal is of the view that the Appellant/Bank has failed to make out a case that the balance of convenience lies in its favour. Moreover, there has been no submission by the Appellant/Bank that, in the event the impugned order is not stayed, the Appellant/Bank would suffer irreparable loss which cannot otherwise be compensated.

10. Last but not least, the details of the parties in the array of parties in the memo of appeal and in I.A. No. 519/2026 are different. Such anomalies and defects are likely to cause legal complications and disabilities eventuall