Sh. Hari Kishan vs Baak of Baroda & Anr.

The instant application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. In the application the appellant has not mentioned the number of days of delay. The Registry has reported that the delay is of 50 days. After considering all facts and the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.

The respondent no.2 filed S.A. bearing no.179/2022 titled as Ms. Satpal Singh Kirar V. Bank of Baroda which was stated to be pending before DRT-III, Delhi (now DRT-I Delhi). The appellant filed an application bearing I.A. no.1318/2022 for impleading M/s B.N. Tools through its proprietor Sh. Hari Kishan, i.e. the appellant as one of the S.A. applicants and further seeking direction to the respondent no.1 to release a machinery, i.e. Plastic Moulding Machinery which is stated to be purchased vide invoice dated 05.08.2021 by the respondent no.2. DRT-III, Delhi vide the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 dismissed the application bearing I.A. no.1318/2022 by observing that the appellant has not given any proof of placing the said machinery in the subject property. DRT also observed that the appellant is appearing to be hand in glove with the respondent no.2 who is the borrower to the respondent no.1. DRT further observed that the said application was filed to frustrate the proceedings in the SA. The appellant being aggrieved, filed the present appeal.

Sh. Sanjeev Bhandari, Ld. Senior Advocate for the appellant argued that the appellant is a poor person and had purchased the Plastic Moulding Machinery vide invoice dated 05.08.2021, a copy of which is also placed on record. It is further argued that the appellant due to lack of space with him kept the machinery in the premises of respondent no.2 at Groud Floor, G-274, Sector-3, Bhawana Industrial Area, Bhawana, Delhi on 01.03.2022. It is also argued that the respondent no.1 without any justification has seized the machinery on 26.04.2022. The Ld. Senior Advocate for the appellant prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the appellant be allowed to be impleaded as necessary party in S.A. No.179/2022.

Sh. Pratyush Parimal, counsel for the respondent no.1 has referred the additional affidavit dated 21.08.2023 filed by the respondent no.1.

The counsel for the respondent no.2 stated that the respondent no.2 is merely a guarantor and referred to the Challan dated 26.02.2022 filed along with his reply.

The appellant only claims that the said Plastic Moulding Machine was kept in the premises of M/s B.N. Tools which was the S.A. applicant and was not subject matter of transaction with the respondent no.1. The Tribunal has rightly observed that no cogent reason has been given by the appellant for the impleadment of the appellant in the present S.A. There is no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 29.09.2022. Hence appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant who is claiming to be the owner of the Plastic Moulding Machinery stated to have been purchased vide invoice dated 05.08.2021 shall be at liberty to establish his ownership in respect of the machine during the trial of the S.A. bearing no.179/2022 by placing relevant material on record. If the respondent no.1 has already auctioned the machine in question, then the respondent no.1 is directed to supply the particulars of the auction purchaser to the appellant before DRT.