JUDGMENT : S. RAVI KUMAR, CHAIRPERSON 1. Mr. R.L. Motwani alongwith Ms. Priya Baliga, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and submitted that there is no reply to M.A. No. 302/2017 i.e. application for bringing additional documents on record. 2. This Appeal is preferred against order dated 25th March, 2014 in Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No. 17 of 2013 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad (D.R.T.). Appellant herein filed above referred M.A. to condone delay of 523 days in filing the S.A. challenging action of the Respondents. That application was dismissed holding that the Appellant failed to explain huge delay of 523 days with convincing reasons and that the reasons stated for delay are not supported by any documents. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Advocate for Appellant submitted that deceased Appellant was T.B. patient and was under treatment for a long period for that reasons he did not file S.A. in time. He further submitted that present Appellant is wife of deceased Appellant who used to work as domestic servants and as there are merits in the claim of Appellant, delay may be condoned by taking humanitarian approach. It is further submitted that present Appellant has now filed documents showing hospitalization of deceased Appellant and since other side has not filed any reply, these documents may be considered. He submitted that as per certificate, which is undated, the deceased Appellant was hospitalized and admitted for treatment from 6th December, 2009 to 16th January, 2010 and as per another certificate, which is also undated, the deceased was hospitalized from 1st May, 2011 to 29th May, 2011 and these certificates would support the claim of Applicant for condonation of delay. Advocate for Respondent submitted that these documents would only show that the Appellant was advised rest during the said period and there is no material to support the plea that was taken in para 3 of the application. It is submitted from the averments in the. application, it can be said that deceased Appellant was hospitalized during the year 2005 for the ailment of T.B. but these documents are of the year 2009 and 2011, therefore, these documents in no way support the plea that was taken in the application. He submitted that learned Presiding Officer has rightly dismissed the application and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. He submitted that learned Presiding Officer has rightly dismissed the application and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. I have perused material papers and the impugned order dated 25th March, 2014 and the documents i.e. certificate issued by Consulting Surgeon, Chirayu Hospital, Hingoli relied on by the Appellant. According to advocate for Appellant, these two certificates would show that the deceased Appellant was hospitalized and admitted for treatment of T.B. during the period mentioned therein. But, on perusal of these certificates it would only disclose that the person named therein was advised rest. First certificate is for the period from 6th December, 2009 to 16th January, 2010 and the second certificate is for the period from 1st May, 2011 to 29th May, 2011 wherein it is stated that patient was advised rest during these periods. These two documents nowhere disclosed that deceased Appellant was admitted in the hospital for the very same period. Further as rightly pointed by advocate for Respondent, in para 3 of the application it is specifically pleaded that the Appellant was hospitalized and was suffering from T.B. and that he was not able to attend his services as he was hospitalized. He has not produced any document from his employer to show that he could not attend the services because of ailment, so also he has not produced any documents as to the hospitalization for treatment. Even before this Tribunal certificates produced are only to show that deceased was advised rest and these certificates do not disclose his admission in the hospital as inpatient for treatment. Learned Presiding Officer has rightly recorded that no material was placed to support ailment that was pleaded in the application and as the delay for 523 days is not satisfactorily proved. He was right in rejecting the request of the Appellant as the cause is not supported by any documentary proof. 6. For these reasons, I am of the considered view of learned Presiding Officer has not committed any error in dismissing the application and that there are no merits in the Appeal. Therefore, Appeal is dismissed. No costs. All Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.