The court upheld the rejection of an application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner due to lack of timely objection and substantiating evidence regarding the nature of secured property.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of March, 2026 The petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam and Ext.P7 order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the lie and nature of the secured asset, has approached this Court by filing this original petition.

2. The petitioner filed S.A.No.65/2022 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam seeking to set aside the proceedings initiated by the respondent bank under SARFAESI Act , on the ground that the secured asset is an agricultural property.

3. During the pendency of the S.A.No.65 of 2022, the petitioner filed I. A. No.181 of 2022, under Order 26 and Rules 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the lie and nature of the property. The Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected the application as per Ext.P4 order dated 04.10.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P7. It is in such circumstances, the petitioner filed this original petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent bank.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by Ext.P4 and P7 orders, the valuable right of the petitioner to adduce evidence, has been denied and the petitioner is left with no other option to prove that the secured asset is an agricultural land. He also submitted that since there is an attachment in the property, the revenue officials are not co- operating and issuing the relevant documents, pertaining to the year in which the property was mortgaged, which would show that the secured asset was an agricultural land. Hence, he prayed that this original petition may be allowed and an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to take out a Commission to prove his contentions.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the attempt of the petitioner is only to protract the matter. He submitted that the contention now raised by the petitioner was never taken at any point of time, while the proceedings were going on and he did not even choose to file reply/objection to Section 13(2) notice issued by the respondent bank. He argued that even in the original petition, the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that the property is an agricultural land and that no purpose would be served in appointing a Commission at this point of time since, the Commissioner cannot ascertain the nature of the land as it was in the year 2015, when the security interest was created.

7. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and materials on record, I am of view that there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is to be taken note that the security interest was created in the property as early as in 2015 and the appointment of an Advocate commissioner at this point of time, will not, in any manner, help to ascertain the nature and lie of the land as it was in the year 2015. That apart, I will also take note of the fact that the petitioner has not raised this contention at any point of time, even in the initial stage, when he had an opportunity to file the objection to Section 13(2) notice. Further, the petitioner has also not produced any title documents or revenue records to substantiate, at least prima facie, his con