Goldie Sud v. Punjab National Bank Adn 3 ORS.

1 of 4 7.wp.521.19.j.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 521 OF 2019 Goldie Sud, Aged 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o 191, S.B.S. Colony, Mumbai -400 059 .. Petitioner Vs.

1.

Punjab National Bank, having its circle office at Maker Tower, 7th Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 2.

Mrs. Kamalesh Saigal Indian Inhabitant, residing at 318, Pali Hill, Union Park, Khar (West), Mumbai400052 3.

Smt. Shilpa Sud Indian Inhabitant, Residing at 191, S.B.S. Colony, Andheri (East), Mumbai400 059 .. Respondents 4a.

Adarsh Saigal Through C.A. Gajanan Tervankar 133, Hill Road,Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050 4b.

Ms. Tina Daroowalla,

2 of 4 7.wp.521.19.j.doc Nee Saigal Through C.A.

Gajanan Tervankar 133, Hill Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai-400 050 4c.

M/s. H.K. Saigal & Sons Through C.A. Gajanan Tervankar, 133, Hill Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050 .. Proposed Respondents ....

Goldie Sud Petitioner in person present Ms. Jinal Gogri i/b Negandhi Shah & Himaytullah for Respondent No.1 ....

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATED : NOVEMBER 04, 2019 ORDER: [PER PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, CJ.]:

1.

Heard the petitioner who appears in person and learned counsel for the respondent. Misc. Appeal No. 104/2010 filed by the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Mumbai was dismissed for non-appearnce on 31st January 2017. Challenge in the appeal was to a sale conducted by the Bank pursuant to a Sale Notice dated 9th April

3 of 4 7.wp.521.19.j.doc 2010. The petitioner filed an application seeking restoration of the appeal which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16th May 2018.

2.

The reason why the learned DRAT did not recall the order dated 31st January 2017 and as a consequence restore the appeal, is that on 24th September 2015 the petitioner was granted time to amend the appeal and implead the auction purchaser as a party. The petitioner did not do so resulting in the appeal being adjourned from time to time. On 25th November 2016 the Appellate Tribunal granted one last opportunity to the petitioner to amend the appeal and implead the auction purchaser as a party. The petitioner did not do so. The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal is that it would be useless to restore the appeal for the reason inspite of repeated opportunity granted the petitioner did not implead the auction purchaser as a party.

3.

Sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for nonappearance on 31st January 2017 has not been gone into by the Appellate Tribunal.

4.

We agree with the view taken by the Appellate

4 of 4 7.wp.521.19.j.doc Tribunal. It would be useless to first restore the appeal and then dismiss it on account of non-impleadment of a necessary party. Suffice it to record that way back on 24th September 2015 the Appellate Tribunal adjourned the appeal requiring the petitioner to implead the auction purchaser and till 31st January 2017 the petitioner took no steps to implead the auction purchaser. In fact, on 31st January 2017 the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-impleadment of a necessary party. 5.

The writ petition is dismissed.

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. CHIEF JUSTICE Digitally signed by Jayant D.

Kandarkar Date:

2019.11.05 11:27:44 +0530 Jayant D.

Kandarkar