Failure to comply with conditional payment orders warrants dismissal of the borrower’s revision petition.

The petitioner sought to challenge the rejection of an application to condone a one-day delay in filing a SARFAESI application under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Madurai.

The material produced before the High Court was a receipt showing that the application had been filed, but it did not establish that the DRT had rejected it; the High Court therefore observed that the revision petition had been filed prematurely.

The Bank also informed the Court that the petitioner had later sought condonation of a 325-day delay, and that the DRT had directed payment of the outstanding amount in four instalments. That conditional order had not been complied with.

The petitioner had also failed to pay the second instalment required by an earlier Division Bench order in related proceedings; the Division Bench subsequently clarified that the impugned order need not remain in abeyance.

Whether the revision petition could be entertained when the material filed did not establish that the DRT had rejected the application at issue

Whether the petitioner’s non-compliance with conditional payment orders warranted dismissal of the revision petition

The petition invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The dispute also arose in the context of an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

The Court applied no identified precedent or detailed statutory test; it relied on the procedural deficiency in the record and the petitioner’s non-compliance with conditional orders as grounds not to entertain the revision.

The receipt produced by the petitioner showed only that an application had been filed, not that it had been rejected, making the challenge premature on the record before the Court.

Further, the petitioner had not complied with the DRT’s conditional order or the Division Bench’s payment directions in the related writ proceedings.

In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to entertain the revision.

It directed the DRT, Madurai, to dispose of any pending proceedings between the parties concerning the same loan transaction as expeditiously as possible.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.