C.W.P. No.10400 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10400 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision.20.07.2011 Sat Narain Sharma s/o Sh. Raghu Nath Sharma r/o House No.54-B, Ashok Nagar, Panipat, District Panipat .....Petitioner Versus Union Bank of India, G.T. Road Panipat, District Panipat through its Branch Manager .....Respondent Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Ghai, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition is against the order passed by the DRT disposing of the appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act with the delay of about 143 days in preferring the appeal. The writ petition is resisted on the ground that against the order passed by DRT, there is provision for appeal under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act and the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 2. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent that the delay itself cannot be condoned. The issue of whether a delay could be condoned or not and whether the time taken by the petitioner in prosecuting the claim before the Consumer Forum as well as Civil Court would be required to be excluded, will be considered in the light of C.W.P. No.10400 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Whether the Court has the power to condone such a delay is not a matter, which could be decided by this Court and it will be considered appropriately in an appeal that the petitioner could file against the order passed under Section 17 of Appellate Authority DRAT. 3. Reserving to the petitioner such liberty to challenge the order and to seek for exclusion for time for condonation, if the law so permits, I dispose of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that during the pendency of these proceedings, the Bank is taking action for delivery of possession of property. It is a residential house and he seeks for protection for a week to apply to the Appellate Authority and seek the appropriate interim directions. The petitioner claims that he is in possession of the property. Such possession, if it has not been already disturbed, shall be protected for one week and will stand automatically merged with the order that the Appellate Authority may feel inclined to pass when the appeal is filed. 5. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 20, 2011 Pankaj*