J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2024 The petitioner is the 3^rd respondent in O.A.No.338 of

2021 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam. The O.A was filed by the Bank for recovery of amount due from the petitioner and the guarantor, the wife of the petitioner. The 4^th respondent is the purchaser of the property in the auction sale. Respondents 2 and 3 are the claimants in the O.A. These claim petitions are pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is submitted that during the pendency of the O.A, the Bank initiated recovery steps under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The property is put for sale. The petitioner is ready to discharge the liability and had approached several times to the Bank. The Bank did not permit the petitioner to pay the amount due and release the property. The Bank proceeded further and in collusion with a forged company, the property was sold for a meager amount of ₹1,42,00,000/-. The sale was not intimated to the petitioner.

3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has approached the trial court on several occasions and the petitioner came to know of the sale only when the Sale Certificate was produced before the Munsiff's Court, Kannur. The petitioner could not approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the stipulated time on issuance of the Sale Certificate, as prescribed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is submitted that the time period for challenging the sale by filing appeal, considering the date of Sale Certificate, is already expired. The sale was registered before the SRO, Chirakkal on 22.12.2023.

4. Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act permits appeal within 45 days on every action pursuant to SARFAESI proceedings. The right to challenge the proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act is already expired, if limitation is calculated from the date of issuance of Sale Certificate. The date of limitations for availing the appellate remedy is available to the petitioner, if the Debts Recovery Tribunal counts the limitation from the date of registration.

5. In the circumstances, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue an order directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakualm to permitting the petitioner to file appeal under Section 17 of the Act considering the date of registration (knowledge of the sale) for calculating the date of limitation.

ii) In the absence to permitting the petitioner to agitate the issue including the right to challenge the sale certificate before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.338 of 2021.

iii) Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

iv) Issue any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

7. The first prayer of the petitioner is to direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam to permit the petitioner to file appeal under Section 17 of the Act considering the date of registration (knowledge of sale) for calculating the date of limitation. Limitation and power to condone delay in filing, are discretionary reliefs exercised by the Courts entertaining such petitions. This Court cannot pass any order directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the manner in which the delay condonation application should be considered.

8. The alternate prayer of the petitioner is to permit the petitioner to agitate the issue including the right to challenge the Sale Certificate before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.338 of 2021. As the O.A.No.338 of 2021 is pending, it is for the petitioner to agitate the issue befor