Court allows delayed claim affidavit emphasizing fair hearing, reconsidering interlocutory orders. Directive for prompt case resolution.

The High Court upheld the DRAT's decision, allowing respondent No. 1 to file a delayed claim affidavit, emphasizing the importance of a fair hearing and considering material evidence. The Court affirmed that interlocutory orders, like the one dated January 16, 2018, can be reconsidered and do not necessarily preclude rights of parties. The directive was given to expedite the main application's disposal, ensuring a balanced approach to preserving parties' rights and facilitating the case's prompt resolution.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing claim affidavit by respondent No. 1.
2. Validity of the order dated January 16, 2018, by the DRT.
3. Whether the DRAT's decision to set aside the DRT's rejection order was justified.
4. The impact of interlocutory orders on the rights of parties.
5. The application of the principle of res judicata to interlocutory orders.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing Claim Affidavit by Respondent No. 1
The petitioner, an asset reconstruction company, challenged the DRAT's order allowing respondent No. 1 to file a delayed claim affidavit. The DRT had initially rejected respondent No. 1's request for condonation of delay, but the DRAT reversed this decision, noting that the claim affidavit was ready and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. The DRAT allowed respondent No. 1 to file the claim affidavit within a week and permitted the petitioner to file an additional affidavit in response.

Issue 2: Validity of the Order Dated January 16, 2018, by the DRT
The petitioner argued that the DRT's order dated January 16, 2018, which forfeited respondent No. 1's right to file a claim affidavit, should be upheld. The petitioner contended that respondent No. 1's subsequent application for condonation of delay was an indirect attempt to recall the January 16, 2018 order. However, the respondent countered that the January 16, 2018 order was not a final adjudication on the merits but an interlocutory order, which did not preclude the possibility of seeking its recall or modification.

Issue 3: Whether the DRAT's Decision to Set Aside the DRT's Rejection Order Was Justified
The DRAT's decision to set aside the DRT's rejection order was based on the observation that the delay in filing the claim affidavit was due to the DRT's non-functioning following a fire incident. The DRAT noted that the petitioner's counsel had previously requested adjournments and that the claim affidavit was ready. The DRAT concluded that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by allowing the delayed filing, as the case would ultimately be decided based on the material evidence presented.

Issue 4: The Impact of Interlocutory Orders on the Rights of Parties
The respondent cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar to argue that interlocutory orders, such as the one dated January 16, 2018, do not attain finality and can be reconsidered. The Supreme Court's judgment highlighted that interlocutory orders are of various kinds and do not necessarily decide the merits of the case. The DRAT's order reflected this understanding, emphasizing that the interlocutory nature of the January 16, 2018 order did not preclude its reconsideration.

Issue 5: The Application of the Principle of Res Judicata to Interlocutory Orders
The principle of res judicata, which prevents the same issue from being litigated multiple times, was discussed in the context of interlocutory orders. The Supreme Court's judgment in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar clarified that while some interlocutory orders may attain finality, others, particularly those that do not decide the merits of the case, can be reconsidered. The DRAT's decision to allow the delayed filing of the claim affidavit was consistent with this principle, as the January 16, 2018 order was not a final adjudication on the merits.

Conclusion:
The High Court agreed with the DRAT's findings and upheld its order, allowing respondent No. 1 to file the claim affidavit and directing the DRT to expedite the disposal of the main application. The Court emphasized the need for a fair hearing and the importance of considering the material evidence before making a final decision. The principle that interlocutory orders do not necessarily preclude reconsideration was reaffirmed, ensuring that the parties' rights were preserved while facilitating the expeditious resolution of the case.

---