( 2026:JHHC:28641-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 542 of 2025 Ashok Agarwal @ Ashok Kumar Agarwal @ Ashok Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of Late Ram Autar Agarwal, R/o D’costa Road, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S.- Jugsalai, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. …. … Appellant Versus Punjab National Bank, a public sector Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Argora Colony, Post- Argora, Police Station- Argora, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. …. … Respondent ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ PRASAD ------ For the Appellant : Ms Neha Agrawal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Ms Vaishnavi Kaushik, Advocate ----- 02 /Dated: 23.09.2026 1. Heard Ms Neha Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr P.A.S. Pati, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 2. I.A. No. 10814 of 2025 seeks condonation of delay of 207 days in instituting the accompanying appeal against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 16th July 2024, disposing of W.P.(C) No. 3598 of 2021 by not entertaining the petition, but granting the appellant-petitioner liberty to raise his grievances before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). 3. Ms Neha Agrawal first submitted that the appellant had apprehension as to whether the DRT would entertain the plea, if filed. 4. Mr P.S.A. Pati, learned counsel for the Bank, submitted that the learned Single Judge’s view was not only correct but also consistent with the law laid down in Agarwal Tracom Private Limited v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2018) 1 SCC 626. Therefore, he submitted that the apprehension that the proceeding was not maintainable before the DRT was misconceived. ( 2026:JHHC:28641-DB ) 2 5. Ms Neha Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, then sought time to obtain instructions from the appellant, and the matter was posted for the afternoon session. 6. In the afternoon session, Ms Neha Agrawal, on instructions from the appellant, sought leave to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file proceedings before the DRT in terms of the liberty granted by the impugned order. She, however, submitted that the period for filing such proceedings has now expired and some reasonable extension may be granted to the appellant. Further, she submitted that should, for any reason, the DRT not entertain the proceedings filed by the appellant herein, then it should be clarified that the appellant will have the liberty to file a suit for seeking remedy in the matter because it is the appellant’s case that the transaction which is the subject matter of this dispute stands vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. 7. In the peculiar facts of the present case, and accepting that the appellant may have been confused, inter alia, on account of conflicting legal advice obtained by him, leave is granted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to institute proceedings before the DRT. If such proceedings are instituted within 15 days from this order being uploaded, then, in terms of the liberty already granted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, the DRT must consider not only the pendency of the writ petition but also the pendency of this appeal in this Court, as the period bona fide spent by the appellant herein when deciding the application for condonation of delay. 8. Further, given the appellant’s apprehension, if the DRT, for reasons of maintainability, declines to entertain the appellant’s proceeding, it is always open to the appellant to institute a suit in accordance with law to seek a ( 2026:JHHC:28641-DB ) 3 remedy. In such a suit, it is also open to the respondent-Bank to contend that the suit is not maintainable. 9. This Court clarifies that it has not gone into the merits and demerits of the rival contentions and therefore, all contentions of all parties are left open. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of, as withdrawn with liberty in the above terms and without any order for costs. I.A. No. 10814 of 2025 is also disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Manoj Prasad, J.) September 23, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. Uploaded on 26/09/2026