1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5703 OF 2009 ... Bank of Maharashtra ..Petitioner v/s. Anil Wamanrao Nikam & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.Arpan Sarkar i/b Singhi & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.Chetan Patil for Respondents Nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED:19th December,2009 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 19-3-2009 passed in Misc.Appeal No.53 of 2009 by the D.R.A.T, Mumbai. By that judgment, DRAT has held that 2 the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable for condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act and has set aside the order passed by the DRT dismissing the application filed by the Respondent for condonation of delay in filing an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act on the ground that the application is not maintainable. 2. We find that the learned D.R.A.T. has rightly relied on the judgment of the UCO Bank, Mumbai v/s. M/s.Kanji Manji Kothari and Co. Mumbai, 2008(4) Mh.L.J., 424 to hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. The only submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that considering the conduct of the Respondent, the learned D.R.A.T. should not have allowed 3 the appeal. In our opinion, the conduct of the Applicant is to be taken into consideration while considering the application for condonation of delay on merits and not for the purpose of deciding whether the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is maintainable or not. What the DRAT has done by the impugned order is that it followed the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in UCO Bank s case, referred to above. In our opinion, therefore, petition cannot be entertained. It is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)