Authorised Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank vs Satyavir Singh

The instant application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. Sh. Rajinder Wali, Advocate for the appellant stated that the appellant came to know about the impugned order dated 30.05.2024 on 28.06.2024 and if the limitation is counted from the date of knowledge, then there is no delay in filing the present appeal.

After considering all facts, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.

The present appeal is filed to impugn the order dated 30.05.2024 in S.A. No. 124/2021 titled as Satyavir Singh V. Punjab and Sind Bank and another which was passed by DRT-II, Chandigarh.

It is reflecting that the respondent filed S.A. bearing No. 124/2021 before DRT-II, Chandigarh which was allowed vide order dated 30.05.2024. It is also reflecting from the record that the respondent has purchased the subject property in the auction conducted by the appellant and has deposited Rs.13,53,000/- in two instalments towards the payment of earnest money and the balance 15%.

The respondent pleaded before the DRT-II, Chandigarh that the appellant has represented at the time of auction that the physical possession of the subject property is with the appellant which was found not to be correct subsequently.

The perusal of impugned order dated 30.05.2024 also reflected that Sh. Ripudaman Singh, Advocate for the appellant also admitted that the subject property was declared as black zone and as such could not be sold. Thereafter, the appellant was directed to refund the money as deposited by the respondent along with interest @ 6% p.a.

Sh. Rajinder Wali, Advocate for the appellant stated that the impugned order is cryptic in nature and was passed without assigning any reason. It is further stated that the respondent being the successful bidder cannot be allowed to backtrack from the bid after deposition of earnest money. Sh. Wali further stated that the amount so paid by the respondent is liable to be forfeited as the balance auction price has not been deposited by the respondent.

Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent argued that the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 was passed on the basis of submission as made by the Counsel for appellant before the DRT-II, Chandigarh and as such cannot be set aside. It is also stated that the subject property was situated in the black zone as such cannot be sold and the sale deed cannot be executed. In these circumstances, Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent defended the impugned order dated 30.05.2024.

It appears that the DRT-II, Chandigarh has passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2024 without considering the relevant facts regarding the entitlement of the respondent for seeking refund of the bid money already deposited by the respondent. The impugned order was passed on the basis of statement of the Counsel for the appellant that the subject property in situated in black zone as such could not be sold and no sale deed can be executed. The impugned order dated 30.05.2024 is not supported by adequate reasons and is accordingly, set aside.

The DRT-II, Chandigarh is directed to reconsider and decide the S.A. bearing No.124/2021 after giving due opportunity to both the parties and after due considering of the rival contention of the parties. However, the appellant is directed to deposit Rs.13,53,000/- as paid by the respondent along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit till today before the DRT-II, Chandigarh within four weeks from today.

The parties are directed to appear before DRT-II, Chandigarh on 29.07.2026.