ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 30-11-2022, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bangalore (‘the Tribunal’ for short), rejecting Interlocutory Application No.1739 of 2021 in D.No.1382 of 2021 and has sought a consequential direction to the Bank to consider the representation made by the petitioner to clear the dues and close the account.

2. Heard Sri K. Ravi Shankara Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. B.G. Nayana Tara, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Sharath Mulia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The petitioner is the grandson of one S.Krishnan (hereinafter referred to as ‘borrower-1’ for short), the absolute owner of the schedule property. Borrower-1 avails certain finance from the then Syndicate Bank. The loan was not only availed by borrower-1 but also his wife Smt. Bhuvana Krishnan (hereinafter referred to ‘borrower-2’ for short) who executed a reverse mortgage agreement by deposit of title deeds of the schedule property on 08-09-2010. During subsistence of the loan as aforesaid, on 04-02-2012, the petitioner requests for grant of an educational loan of Rs.7.5 lakhs. The loan comes to be sanctioned on the very property that had already been mortgaged towards earlier finance. The security offered for mortgage loan was also taken as security for the educational loan. On 10-07-2012 borrower-1, the person who had availed the loan dies. On 06-02-2017, the loan availed by borrower-1 was classified as a non-performing asset. On

13-08-2018, on the ground that the loan had become sticky, respondent No.1 initiates proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’). The Bank issued a demand notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the of the SARFAESI Act demanding repayment of entire finance – both educational loan and reverse mortgage loan. In furtherance of the aforesaid demand notice, a possession notice was issued upon the borrowers on 24-06-2019. After issuance of the said notices, borrower-2 dies on 15-01-2021. After the death of both the borrowers, the petitioner makes a representation for settlement of amount to the Canara Bank as by then the Syndicate Bank had merged with Canara Bank. Pending consideration of the said representation, the petitioner approaches the Tribunal by invoking Section 17(4) of the SARFAESI Act by filing a petition and an application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Bank files its objections before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejects the application of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay holding that the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal after about 772 days and the Tribunal under the Act, had no power to condone the delay as was sought for. It is this order that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Bank has played fraud on the borrowers, proceedings are initiated against dead persons and the petitioner herein was not aware of any of the proceedings and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered all those facts and ought to have entertained the petition filed before it calling in question such fraudulent activity of the Bank. He would submit that the petitioner even now is ready and willing to clear entire dues according to him and regain the property that is the secured asset at the hands of the Bank.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the first respondent - Bank would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner is feigning ignorance of the proceedings as he is completely aware of all the facts and has deliberately approached this Court instead of knocking at the d