Recovery under Section 31A before the Tribunal remains maintainable, but delayed filings require condonation under limitation law.

An application under Section 31A(1) for recovery on the basis of a preliminary mortgage decree is maintainable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as a recovery proceeding. Once the time fixed in the preliminary decree expires, the application may be treated as akin to a final decree proceeding for recovery of the decretal debt, and the Tribunal retains jurisdiction because the Act vests exclusive recovery power in it. However, where such an application is filed beyond the ordinary limitation period, Section 24 makes the Limitation Act applicable, so delay cannot be ignored and condonation must be sought before the Tribunal. The recovery application was not struck off, but the delay had to be regularised before proceedings could continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application under Section 31A(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, filed for recovery pursuant to a preliminary mortgage decree, was liable to be struck off as barred by limitation and beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Analysis: The preliminary decree had already determined the amount due and granted time for payment. After expiry of that time, the bank's application before the Tribunal was treated as being in the nature of a final decree proceeding for recovery of the decretal debt. Since the Act vested recovery jurisdiction in the Tribunal and excluded the civil court's jurisdiction, the Tribunal was competent to entertain the matter. However, the application was filed after the period that would ordinarily govern a final decree-type proceeding, and Section 24 of the Act made the Limitation Act applicable to applications before the Tribunal. On that footing, delay could not be ignored altogether, and the bank was required to seek condonation of delay before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The application was not struck off. The respondent bank was permitted to file an application to condone delay, and upon such application being allowed, the Tribunal could proceed to issue the recovery certificate under Section 31A(1).

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed to secure striking off of the recovery application, but the respondent was directed to regularise the delay before the Tribunal, leaving the recovery proceedings to continue subject to that procedural step.

Ratio Decidendi: An application under Section 31A(1) for recovery on the basis of a preliminary decree is maintainable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as a recovery proceeding, but when filed beyond the ordinary limitation period, it must be accompanied by, or be preceded by, a plea for condonation of delay under the applicable limitation law.

---