[2026:RJ-JP:7203]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 995/2026 Prashant Jat S/o Late Mr. Ram Sahai Jat, R/o Post Wazirpur, District Sawaimadhopur 322219 (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Bank Of Baroda, A Banking Company, A Body Corporate Constituted Under The Banking Companies/ Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertaking, Act 1970 And Having Its Head Office At Mandavi, Baroda And One Of Its Branch Office At Branch Wazirpur, Sawaimadhopur Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory.

2. Mr. Jai Singh Meena S/o Dhan Singh Meena, R/o 173, Mandir Ke Pass, Kishorepura, Tehsil- Wazirpur, District-

Sawaimadhopur- 322219.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hans Kumar Sharma Mr. Avinash Meghwal For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

16/02/2026

1. The challenge in the present writ petition has been made to the order dated 30.09.2023, passed by learned Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jaipur in OA No.365/2022, vide which the OA filed by the petitioner has been allowed.

2. Upon a specific query raised by this Court with regard to the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hans Kumar Sharma, that since a period of more than two years has elapsed, the limitation for filing appeal has already expired and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the event of filing an appeal against the order passed by learned DRT, the delay in filing the appeal may be considered and condoned by taking a sympathetic view. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Writ Petition No.4810/2019 titled as M.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. IFCI Ltd., wherein the writ petition was entertained and the order passed by learned DRT allowing the claim made by the financial institutions was set aside.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

5. It is a matter of record that the present writ petition challenges the order dated 30.09.2023 passed by learned DRT, Jaipur. Being conscious of the fact that the said order passed by learned DRT is appealable before the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), this Court is not inclined to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction. Perusal of the Ground ‘D’ raised in the writ petition reveals that the petitioner is conscious of the fact that the remedy of appeal is available, however, it is only on account of limitation having expired that the petitioner is not invoking the said remedy. Ground ‘D’ of the writ petition reads as under:-

“BECAUSE as the Petitioner is left with no remedy in law as the remedy of preferring Review is lost looking to limitation prescribed is expired and the right to prefer Appeal is gone for the same reason thus the only remedy available with the humble Petitioner is invoking the Article 227 of the Constitution of India thereby the judgment dated 30.11.2023 deserves to be quashed and set aside.”

6. It is more than settled that a writ petition cannot be filed by ignoring the statutory remedy provided solely to bypass the period of limitation prescribed for filing the said appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinda and Others Vs. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., reported in (2020) 19 SCC 681 has categorically held so. Relevant extract of which reads as under:-

“19. We may now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. [Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 21 : (2018) 361 ELT 22] , which had adopted the view taken by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [Panoli Interme