AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Bhasin, J
The appellant has filed his appeal against the order dated 7.3.2017 passed by the DRT fixing the date of 15.3.2017 for filing of reply and hearing of appellants I.A. No. 366/2017 which she had filed for an interim injunction against the Bank and the Receiver for restraining them from taking physical possession of the property in question. The main grievance of the appellant has been that in her S.A. filed way back in the year 2011 an order of the status quo was passed by the DRT and not only that S.A. is still pending but the interim order is also continuing. Despite that fact, threat was extended for dispossession of the appellant and accordingly an application was moved in the S.A. but the learned Presiding Officer presently presiding over DRT-III did not grant any relief to the appellant and, therefore, the appellant file M.A. No. 116/2017, it is also listed today at serial No. 14. In the appeal this Tribunal has already passed an order of status quo in respect of the property in question noticing the submission of the appellant that there was already an order of status quo subsisting in the S.A. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any justification for the appellant to have filed this appeal claiming the same relief of status quo.
The apprehension expressed by the Counsel for the appellant is that the Recovery Officer is suing to proceed with the sale of the property in question on the pretext that order of the status quo has been passed in the S.A. but not in the O.A. In case, the appellant feels that the Recovery Officer is in breach of the order passed in the S.A. regarding status quo, she can always initiate proceedings in accordance with law for breach of that order by the Recovery Officer.
With this observation, this appeal is dismissed.