1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10092 OF 2009 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL STAMP NO. 20950 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2168 OF 2008 State Bank of India .. Applicant Versus 1. Vinay G. Bhatiya and others .. Respondents Shri Sunil A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri A. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and 2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER [Per B. R. Gavai, J. ] : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal. The delay is of 136 days. The application is vehemently opposed by Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 2 respondents. 2. The respondents had filed writ petition bearing No. 2168/2008 challenging the order passed by learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad in Misc. Application No. 46/2007. The petitioners had challenged the order passed by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, rejecting the application filed by the respondents herein for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 26th October, 2007. The application was rejected basically on the ground that, the application was filed beyond the limitation. The petition came to be allowed vide order dated 09th April, 2009. Thereafter, an application came to be filed by the present appellants bearing Civil Application No. 7599/2009 styling the said application to be an application for recalling the order in Writ Petition No. 2168/2008. The application came to be rejected. The appellants have filed the present review appeal challenging the order dated 28th August, 2009. 3. According to the appellants, the appeal was within time in as much as order passed on dated 28th August, 2009 is concerned. However, since the office has raised an objection that, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is dated 09th April, 2009, the application for condonation of delay was necessary. 4. According to the applicant, there is no delay from the date of order dated 09th April, 2009, which is sought to be impugned in the present appeal. It is however, submitted by the learned counsel 3 appearing on behalf of the appellant that after the order was passed on 09th April, 2009, it was noticed after three to four months that, the petition challenging the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal is to be placed before the Division Bench and, therefore, on inquiry he came to know that, vide the notification dated 23rd November, 2005, there was an amendment to the Rules providing that, the orders passed under The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and The Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 will be heard by a Division Bench. 5. In the present matter it appears that, neither the counsel for the original petitioner nor the counsel for the respondent and Registry had noticed the notification dated 23rd November, 2005. Had the office noticed the said notification the office ought to have raised an objection that, the petition pertains to the jurisdiction of Division Bench. It appears that, neither the office nor the respondent (Appellant) herein raised an objection. 6. It is thus clear that, due to non noticing of the aforesaid notification, the matter was heard and decided by the learned Single Judge, which ought to have been heard by the Division Bench. It further appears that, immediately after noticing about the same an application for recalling the order came to be filed by the appellant. 7. It is thus clear that, the delay is not intentional nor deliberate and occasioned due to the circumstances beyond the control of the 4 appellant. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/Sept. 09