AJN 18-AS-WP912.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.912 OF 2011 Chandrakant P. Parate ... Petitioner Vs. Central Bank of India & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. A.L. Gore for the petitioner. Ms. Sapana Rachure i/b T.N. Tripathi & Co. for respondent 1. Mr. M.P. Rege for respondent 4. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 18TH APRIL, 2011. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner is the husband of one Hemlata Parate. She was the Proprietress of M/s. Mayank Agro i.e. respondent 2 herein. In 2003, respondent 1 i.e. Central Bank of India sanctioned credit facility to respondent 2 in the sum of Rs.10 lakhs. The petitioner stood as guarantor AJN 18-AS-WP912.11 2 for the said loan. Hemlata Parate expired on 4/3/2005. Respondent 2 could not repay the debt amount. Hence, the Central Bank of India filed original application in the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, “the DRT”). Though the petitioner was served with the original application, the petitioner did not appear before the DRT. No written statement was filed and, therefore, the DRT by judgment and order dated 10/6/2009 allowed the original application and passed a decree directing respondent 2 and the petitioner to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 13,18,027.90 with interest at 14% per annum from the date of original application till realization, to the Central Bank of India. Instead of filing a regular appeal against the said order, the petitioner filed application being Application (Lodging) No.536 of 2009 for setting aside the order dated 10/6/2009. Since there was 43 days' delay in filing the application, the petitioner filed Misc. Application No.140 of 2009 for condonation of delay. That application was rejected by the DRT on 17/5/2010. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No.313 of 2010. Since AJN 18-AS-WP912.11 3 there was delay of 139 days in filing the appeal, the petitioner filed Misc. Application No.1292 of 2010 for condonation of delay. By impugned judgment and order dated 5/1/2011, that application as well as the miscellaneous appeal came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. He submitted that due to dire financial situation of the petitioner, the petitioner could not repay the loan. Counsel submitted that the petitioner is prepared to deposit 50% of the decretal amount. He submitted that in the interest of justice and on humanitarian ground, the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be heard on merits. 3. It is not possible for us to accept this submission. According to the petitioner, time was spent on settlement talks. This is denied by the respondent bank. There is no credible evidence to substantiate this contention. The AJN 18-AS-WP912.11 4 petitioner has tried to put the blame on the earlier advocate. That is also not substantiated. The certified copy was made available to the petitioner on 17/6/2010. Yet the appeal was filed on 23/11/2010. We have no hesitation in confirming the finding that there is no acceptable explanation for condonation of delay. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay, this is a case where no relief can be granted to the petitioner because on 29/11/2010 auction of the property in question has already taken place. The successful bidder is before us. He is respondent 4. He has already deposited Rs.24 lakhs with respondent 3- Recovery Officer. Sale is confirmed on 6/1/2011. Sale Certificate dated 18/1/2011 is issued to him. Respondent 4 has paid stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,02,600/-. He has also paid necessary commission and charges to the DRT as per rules. He cannot take possession of the property because the petitioner is adamant. The petitioner is not vacating the premises. In any case, we called upon the petitioner to deposit the entire outstanding amount which AJN 18-AS-WP912.11 5 he did not do. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted. The petition is dismissed. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks stay of this order. The prayer is rejected. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]