- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8118 WP No. 2929 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 2929 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SMT ARATHI S WIFE OF SHRI. SATHYANARAYANA S R, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 32/2-1, GANGAMMA TEMPLE STREET, JORIPET BENGALURU - 560 002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJITH H.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRIDHAR H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, ELECTRONIC CITY BRANCH, CONCORDE SILICON VALLEY, NEELADRI ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE -1, BENGALURU-560 100 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8118 WP No. 2929 of 2026 2. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ELECTRONIC CITY BRANCH, CONCORD COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEELADRI ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE -1, BENGALURU - 560 100 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER 3. SMT. E SRIVALLI K WIFE OF SHRI. MALLIKARJUNA K, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT 278, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AECS LAYOUT, 'B' BLOCK, SINGASANDRA EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 068 4. SHRI. MALLIKARJUNA K SON OF SAI PRAKASH K, MAJOR IN AGE RESIDING AT 278, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AECS LAYOUT, 'B' BLOCK, SINGASANDRA EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 068 5. SHRI NOORI RAGHUNANDHAN SON OF LATE. RAMA SASTRY, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 501, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8118 WP No. 2929 of 2026 MYTHRI PRESTIGE APARTMENTS, SARASWATHIPURAM, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, AREKERE, BENGALURU 560 073 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S R NARAYANAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 V/O DATED 10.02.2024 NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 US D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ANNX-S ORDER DATED 31/12/2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, BENGALURU, IN IA NO. 2680/2023 AND CONSEQUENTIAL DISMISSAL OF ANNX-P, APPLICATION IN S.A. NO. 637/2023 AS BEING ARBITARY, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE. B) DIRECTING THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, BENGALURU, TO RECONSIDER THE ANNX-P, S.A. APPLICATION ON MERIT BY CONDONING THE DELAY, IF ANY, IN PREFERRING THE SAME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8118 WP No. 2929 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bangalore (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in I.A. No. 2680 of 2023, and consequential dismissal of application in S.A. No.637 of 2023. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner entered into a registered sale agreement for the schedule property with K.Pradeep Kumar and paid the entire consideration amount on 27.04.2016. K.Pradeep fraudulently executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.3, who then created a security in favour of respondent No.2 Bank. The respondent Bank lodged a criminal complaint against K.Pradeep and others for the fraud and forgery related to the housing loans. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8118 WP No. 2929 of 2026 4. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.476 of 2019 for the relief of specific performance of contract, and to declare that the Bank's mortgage is null and void. The Civil Court granted an interim order of status quo. The Police filed a final report seeking prosecution of K.Pradeep and others for the fraud in C.C. No.11982 of 2021. 5. Despite the status quo order, the Bank filed a Criminal Misc. No 863 of 2023 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’), which was allowed. 6. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed in Criminal Misc. No.863 of 2023, preferred a Securitization Application No.637 of 2023 before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. Along with that, an application was filed for condonation of delay in I.A. No.2680 of 2023. The Tribunal rejected the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8118 WP No. 2929 of 2026 application and consequently, rejected S.A. No.637 of 2023. Hence, this petition. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondent- Bank. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a party to the alleged loan transaction between K.Pradeep, and the Bank and that the Bank has already lodged a criminal complaint against K.Pradeep, and a final charge sheet has been filed against K.Pradeep. 9. Despite knowing the said fact, the Bank has filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act, and he also submits that the petitioner is an agreement holder and filed suit in O.S. No. 476 of 2019, wherein the Civil Court granted an order of status quo. The Bank is also a party to the suit in O.S. No.476 of 2019 and the Trial Court has granted a status quo order. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8118 WP No. 2929 of 2026 respondent Bank, without arraying the petitioner as a party, filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act, and obtained an order behind the back of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was not aware about the order passed in Criminal Misc. No.863 of 2023. Thus, the petitioner, after coming to know about its disposal, immediately approached the Tribunal. Though, there is no delay in approaching the Tribunal, to avoid the technicalities, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the Tribunal, without considering the said aspect, has rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the securitization application. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous, and contrary to the records. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8118 WP No. 2929 of 2026 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the respondent-Bank initiated a recovery proceedings under the Act, and the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay, as the petitioner has not shown any sufficient cause for condoning the delay and hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. It is an undisputed fact that K.Pradeep was the absolute owner of the schedule property and it is the claim of the petitioner that, K.Pradeep entered into a sale agreement with the petitioner on 27.04.2016 and the entire consideration amount was paid to K.Pradeep. K.Pradeep has, by playing fraud on the petitioner, executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 created a security interest in favour of respondent No.2 Bank. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8118 WP No. 2929 of 2026 Respondent No.2 Bank lodged a criminal complaint against K.Pradeep, and others. 13. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S. No.476 of 2019. The respondent Bank is a party to the said proceedings, and the learned Civil Court granted an order of status quo. 14. When the respondent Bank, being a party to the suit, without arraying the petitioner as a party in the petition, filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act and obtained an order, the petitioner was not having knowledge regarding filing of a petition under Section 14 of the Act. The petitioner, after coming to know about the order passed by the Magistrate in Crl.Misc. No.863 of 2023, immediately approached the Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the Act along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioner has narrated - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8118 WP No. 2929 of 2026 all the facts, however, said aspects were not considered by the Tribunal, and committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay by passing the impugned order vide Annexure-S. The petitioner has shown sufficient cause for not filing an application under Section 17 of the Act within stipulated time. 15. Although the petitioner contended that the petitioner after getting knowledge, immediately she approached the Tribunal, the Tribunal could have allowed the application, however, on the contrary, the Tribunal rejected the application and consequently, dismissed securitization application. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal vide Annexure-S is contrary to the records. 16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8118 WP No. 2929 of 2026 ORDER (I) The writ petition is allowed; (II) The impugned order dated 31.12.2025 passed in I.A. No. 2680/2023 by the Tribunal and consequential dismissal of the application in S.A. No.637 of 2023 are quashed. (III) I.A. No.2680 of 2023 is allowed. (IV) S.A. No.637 of 2023 is restored to its original file. (V) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of S.A. No.637 of 2023 on merits. (VI) All contentions of the parties are kept open. (VII) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.03.2026 without awaiting any further notice from the Tribunal. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8118 WP No. 2929 of 2026 (VIII) Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30