THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1556 of 2005 ORDER: The respondents initiated proceedings against petitioners, under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). Initially, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.6034 of 2004 assailing the notices issued to them. The writ petition was dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedies against notice, dated 21.04.2004. Thereupon, the petitioners filed application under Section 17(1) of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). They filed I.A.No.1345 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with a prayer to condone the delay of 23 days. It was pleaded that after receiving notice, the petitioners have undertaken correspondence with the respondents, and only on finding that the request was not being acceded to, they have approached the Tribunal. Through its order, dated 10.11.2004, the Tribunal dismissed I.A.No.1345 of 2004. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri S.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.V.Uma Shanker Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent. As soon as the petitioners received notice, dated 21.04.2004 issued by the respondents, they have swung into action and approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.6034 of 2004, which was dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the remedy under Section 17 of the Act. In the meanwhile, they got issued notice, dated 16.08.2004. Reply, dated 25.08.2004, issued by the first respondent was received by the petitioners, on 26.09.2004. Explaining these developments, the petitioners prayed for condonation of delay. The Tribunal reckoned limitation from the date of notice. Such an approach cannot be countenanced in law. The reason is that Section 17 of the Act provides for appeal against measures taken under Sub-Section 4 of Section 13 of that Act, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, within 45 days from the date on which such measure had been taken. The word ‘measure’ is not defined under the Act. It has to be taken as not only the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, but also the response to a representation made by the borrower. Viewed in this context, the opinion expressed by the Tribunal does not appear to be correct. At any rate, the very fact that the petitioners approached the respondents with the representation discloses that they were diligently pursuing the remedies. The Tribunal has taken a hyper technical view of the matter, while rejecting the application. This Court is of the view that delay has been properly explained. Hence, the CRP is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.1345 of 2004 is allowed. Delay in presentation of the appeal is condoned and the Tribunal shall decide the matter on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 20th AUGUST, 2009. kvni