AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
19.06.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain
Arguments heard. Sh. Vivek Singh assisted by Sh. Ajit Singh, Advocate advanced arguments on behalf of the appellant and Sh. Sidharth Aggarwal, Advocate advanced arguments on behalf of the respondent.
The appellant filed S.A. bearing No.71/2026 titled as Dinesh Kumar Sharma V Delhi Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited which is stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi. The appellant filed an application bearing I.A. No.1214/2026 wherein it was prayed that the respondent be restrained from auctioning the subject property, i.e. Shop/Clinic bearing no.1/2751, Ram Nagar, Mandoli Road, Village Sikdarpur, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 more specifically described as Plot No.38, forming part of Khasra no.986/389-393 and 987/389-393 on 22.05.2026. DRT-I, Delhi vide the impugned order dated 21.05.2026 dismissed the application. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 21.05.2026 is reproduced as under:-
In the present matter, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the owner of a shop admeasuring 25 sq.yds. and he has nothing to do with the mortgage property of the respondent bank. He further submitted that the respondent bank has taken the physical possession of the property admeasuring 25 sq.yds., whereas Ms. Sangeeta Sagar (who is the borrower/mortgagor of the respondent bank) has taken the loan from the respondent bank against the mortgage of the property admeasuring 50 sq.yds., therefore, the respondent bank may be restrained from auctioning the property in question, which is owned by the applicant. From perusal of the records, it is clear that the applicant has purchased the property admeasuring 50 sq.yds. of the same number and there cannot be one number of two properties and both the properties are consisting of 50 Sq.yds. each, but the applicant is claiming ownership of one shop admeasuring 25 sq.yds. Therefore, prima facie there is no force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel and even otherwise this Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2026 has already rejected the interim prayer of the applicant and directed the respondent bank to take the possession of the property, which is mortgaged with the respondent bank.
Sh. Vivek Singh, Advocate for the appellant stated that the appellant is the owner of the Shop measuring 25 sq.yds. and has nothing to do with the loan stated to have been advanced by the respondent. He further submitted that the appellant is neither the borrower nor the mortgagor to the respondent and has not availed any loan facility from the respondent. Sangeeta Sagar is the borrower / mortgagor of the respondent and had availed loan from the respondent against the mortgage of the property stated to be situated at Khasra no.1407 and is situated next to the property claimed to be owned by the appellant. It is accordingly argued that the impugned order dated 21.05.2026 be set aside and the respondent be restrained from putting the subject property, the subject matter of I.A. No.1214/2026 to auction.
Sh. Sidharth Agarwal, the Advocate for the respondent stated that the entire mortgaged property is measuring 50 sq.yds. which is physically separable into two parts, i.e. two Shops. It is further stated that the respondent has already taken possession of the shop measuring 25 sq.yds. and put to auction and, thereafter, sale certificate was also issued to the auction purchaser. It is also stated that the respondent is still in the possession of the said portion of the mortgaged property measuring 25 sq.yds. Sh. Agarwal further stated that the shop/clinic which is stated to be owned by the appellant was also mortgaged with the respondent but the possession of the said portion could not be taken as it is in the possession of the appellant. Sh. Agarwal also stated that with the auction of a portion of the property measuring 25 sq.yds. the outstanding dues against the borrower stands satisfied and the respondent is not contemplating to take possession of the portion of the mortgaged property measuring 25 sq.yds. which is alleged to be owned and in possession by the appellant. He further stated that all the issues raised in I.A. No.1214/2026 are still under consideration before DRT-I, Delhi in S.A. bearing No.71/2026 and it can only be decided by DRT and not in the present appeal.
It is reflecting that the respondent has taken the possession of the property measuring 25 sq.yds. from the actual borrower / mortgagor and another property stated to be bearing no.1/2751, Ram Nagar, Mandoli Road, Village Sikdarpur, Shahdara, Delhi is still in the possession of the appellant. The appellant is also claiming his ownership right, title and interest in respect of the portion of the property measuring 25 sq. yds. which is stated to be auctioned by the respondent. In these circumstances, the present appeal is disposed of with the direction to the respondent to maintain status quo regarding possession and title in respect of both the portions each measuring 25 sq.yds., i.e. the portion under the possession of the appellant and the portion which has already been stated to have been auctioned and sale certificate has already been issued. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, DRT-I, Delhi is directed to dispose of S.A. bearing No.71/2026 preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
On the request of the counsel for the appellant, the counsel for the respondent is also directed to supply the details of the auction purchaser to the appellant so that appropriate legal proceeding can be initiated by the appellant as requested and prayed for impleading the auction purchaser in pending S.A. bearing no.71/2026 before DRT within a week.
Nothing in this order shall be taken as any opinion on the final merits of the case. The auction purchaser, if impleaded, shall also be at liberty to take all the pleas and contentions available to the auction purchaser in accordance with law.
Copy of this order be given dasti to both the parties.