IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2003 of 2011 STATE BANK OF INDIA represented through Assistant General Manager, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), State Bank of India, Main Branch Building, 2nd Floor, West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001. ------------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL through its Registrar at DRAT, Opposite Kolkata High Court, 9, Old Court House Street, 7th Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal- 700001. 2. M/S K. K. Glass Factory Pvt. Ltd. Piprakothi, East Champaran, through its Managing Director, Virendra Kumar Singh, S/O Late Jagarnath Singh, resident of Village-Kuerpur, P.O. & P.S. Pipra Kothi, District- Champaran. -----------Respondents -------------------------- For the Petitioner:- Dr. Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents:- Mr. S.P. Srivastava, Advocate. Mr. Santosh Bharti, Advocate. --------------------- 2. 04.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 2. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner namely the State Bank of India challenging order dated 28.9.2010 by which the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata condoned the delay of 227 days in preferring appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 bearing Appeal Nos. 18 and 19 of 2010 by respondent no. 2 against the judgment and certificate dated 31.7.2009 by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna under Section 19 (22) of the Act in P.T. Case Nos. 317 and 318 of 1998 which was passed in favour of the Bank. 3. From perusal of the materials on record it is quite apparent that there was 227 days delay in filing of the said 2 appeal for condoning which appellant (respondent no. 2) had filed a limitation petition under Section 5 of the limitation Act (Annexure-2) on the ground that representative of the appellant firm was seriously suffering from spondylitis and was well advised for complete bed rest by the doctor, in support of which he had filed a certificate of the doctor dated 8.3.2010 and a prescription dated 28.8.2009. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said certificate and prescription are manufactured papers as the representative of respondent no. 2, according to his case, was suffering from serious spondylitis but the doctor who was treating him was a gynecologist and there was no occasion for the said representative of respondent no. 2 to go to the clinic of the said doctor which is very far from his residence in Calcutta, when several good doctors of spondylitis have their clinics nearby. 5. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that the doctor who had treated was not only a gynecologist but was also a general physician and had qualifications of M.B.B.S., D.G.O., F.I.C.M.C.H. Further more the choice of doctor is always to the satisfaction of the patient who cannot be forced to consult the doctor nearby, when he is satisfied with a doctor who has his clinic at some distance. The certificate and prescription of the doctor does not appear to be manufactured. 3 6. The lower appellate Court had also considered the matter in detail and had allowed the petition for condoning delay after considering the documents and the claim of the parties and after coming to the conclusion that the medical certificate inspired confidence and the explanation offered by the appellant was satisfactory and the bank did not adduce any material to the contrary. Hence the ground taken by the appellant was rightly accepted by the appellate Court and the dealy was legally condoned. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 7. However, the appellate Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the appeal without giving any undue adjournment to any of the party. Anand Kr. ( S. N. Hussain, J.)