AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondent no.1 filed O.A. bearing No. 319/2015 titled as Punjab National Bank v. Promila Sanjotra & others against respondents no.2 to 4 who were the defendants before the DRT-I, Delhi in O.A.
The respondents no. 2 to 4 were ordered to be proceeded ex parte vide order dated 03.05.2016 passed by DRT-I, Delhi. The DRT-I, Delhi vide judgment dated 30.08.2016 allowed the O.A. and directed the respondents no. 2 to 4 (defendants no.1 to 3) to pay a sum of Rs.36,14,400/- along with interest as detailed in the judgment dated 30.08.2016. The DRT-I, Delhi vide judgment dated 30.08.2016 also ordered for issuance of Recovery Certificate which was ordered to be sent to Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Delhi.
The appellant filed objections in Recovery Certificate bearing RC No. 312/2017 (renumbered as TRC No. 225/2022) in the year 2017, which was disposed of by Recovery Officer-I attached to DRT-II, Delhi vide order dated 11.08.2025. The Recovery Officer-I, DRT-II, Delhi observed that the objections which were preferred by the appellant vide M.A. bearing No.8740/2018 (renumbered as TMA No. 05/2023), DRT-II, Delhi vide order dated 24.09.2024 has decided the same and the said order is also under challenged in the present appeal. The Recovery Officer-I, DRT-II, Delhi has also dismissed the objections filed by the appellant before the Recovery Officer.
It is pertinent to mention that the appellant also filed objections now bearing TMA No. 05/2023 before the DRT-II, Delhi claiming her title on the basis of title documents as detailed in the objections. DRT-II, Delhi vide impugned order dated 24.09.2024 has dismissed the objection by primarily observing that the Section 26 (2) of the RDB Act or under Section 19(25) of the RDB Act, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and final order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.
The perusal of impugned order dated 24.09.2024 reflects that the appellant has contended that the sale deed on the basis of which the subject property was mortgaged was forged and fabricated and no such record is available in the office of Sub-Registrar. The appellant came to know about the proceedings under SARFAESI Act when the respondent no.1 pasted a notice of Sale Proclamation dated 15.07.2017.
The appellant also contended that the proceedings before the Recovery Officer were initiated on the basis of forged and fabricated documents in respect of the subject property and the Recovery Certificate was obtained fraudulently by misguiding the DRT. The appellant also claiming title on the basis of Convenience Deed dated 10.10.2011.
The respondent no.1 before the DRT-II, Delhi contended that the order dated 30.08.2016 passed in O.A. bearing No. 319/2015 has become final as no appeal was filed to challenge the said order. The present appeal has been barred by limitation as the subject premises were sealed under order dated 26.05.2017 passed by the Recovery Officer on 15.07.2017. The Conveyance Deed dated 10.10.2011 does not affect the right of the respondent no.1. It was also contended that the respondent no.2 has purchased the Ground Floor of the property in question from the appellant vide sale deed dated 27.07.2012. In these circumstances, it was contended that the objection preferred by the appellant be dismissed.
The perusal of impugned order reflects that the DRT vide impugned order dated 24.09.2024 dismissed the objection preferred by the appellant before the DRT-II, Delhi primarily on the ground that the Tribunal cannot set aside the judgment and final order passed in OA in the exercise of power under Sections 26 (2) or Section 19(25) of the RDB Act.
Sh. Amar Nath Saini, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant after referring the above documents/orders argued that the appellant is having the independent title in respect of the Ground Floor of the property bearing No. BH-209, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 which was never sold to the respondent no.2 vide sale deed dated 27.07.2012. Sh. Saini, Senior Advocate also referred the Conveyance Deed dated 10.11.2011 executed by the DDA in favour of the appellant in support of his argument regarding the unquestioned title of the appellant in respect of the Ground Floor of the subject property.
Sh. Saini, Senior Advocate also referred Search Report of the respondent no.1 dated 13.08.2018 prepared by Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate and address to the Chief Manager of the respondent no.1 wherein, it was categorically mentioned that the respondent no.2 was not having any right, title or interest arising out of Sale Deed dated 27.07.2012, which on verification was found to be fake and forged documents.
Sh. Saini, Senior Advocate during the course of arguments also relied upon the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 377/2015 titled as Punjab & Sind bank v. Tajwinder Singh and others to substantiate the arguments that the power under Sections 19(25) and 26 (2) of the RDB Act can be exercised to prevent the forgery and also referred the judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in Dr. Anil Nandkishor Tibrewala and another v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited and others on 11.07.2006.
Sh. Ravinder Gupta, Counsel for respondent no.1 has defended the impugned order and argued that the appellant is not having any right, title or interest in respect of the Ground Floor of the subject property and during the course of arguments has referred the Search Report dated 12.06.2012 prepared by Ms. Sudha Verma, Advocate wherein, it was reported that the respondent no.2 was having the valid registered sale deed in respect of the Ground Floor of the subject property. He argued that the present appeal is ordered to be dismissed.
Section 19(25) of the RDB Act provides that the Tribunal can make such orders and pass such direction as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. Section 26 (2) provides that notwithstanding the issue of a certificate to a Recovery Officer, the Presiding Officer shall have power to withdraw the certificate or to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the certificate by sending an intimation to the Recovery Officer.
It is mandated from the above said provisions that the DRT can pass any order to prevent the abuse of the process and also to secure the ends of justice. The appellant has categorically claimed her right, title or interest in respect of the Ground Floor of the subject property on the basis of Conveyance Deed dated 10.10.2011 stated to have been executed by the DDA in favour of appellant and Rajesh Sharma, Advocate appointed by the respondent no.1 in the Search Report dated 13.08.2018 also reported that the sale deed in the favour of respondent no.2 is forged and fabricated documents. It is pertaining to mention herein that the Search Report dated 13.08.2018 was submitted after the Search Report dated 12.06.2012 prepared by Sudha Verma, Advocate and address to the respondent no.1.
At this stage it is prima facie appearing that there is a force in the contention and stands of the appellant that the mortgaged was never created in respect of the Ground Floor of the subject property and the appellant is having title in respect of the Ground Floor of the subject property. The objections which were ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2024 required wider consideration by the DRT-II, Delhi and cannot be dismissed merely that the DRT does not have power to set aside the judgment/ final order passed in O.A. The present disputes does not involve the setting aside of the judgment passed in the O.A. but it is the exercise of the power to prevent the misuse of the process and to secure the ends of the justice.
After considering all the facts, the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 is set aside and the objections in TMA bearing No. 05/2023 preferred by the appellant are directed to be re-decided by the Tribunal after taking into consideration all the issues and contentions as raised by Shri Amar Nath Saini, Senior Advocate for the appellant and after giving due and proper consideration to their pleas and contentions of all the concerned parties. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
The concerned parties are directed to appear before DRT-II, Delhi on 25.08.2026. However, it is made clear that in case the DRT-II, Delhi comes to the conclusion that the title documents as relied upon by the appellant are not genuine and the appellant has raised a forged and fabricated claim in the objections, in that eventuality, the DRT shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal action against the appellant in accordance with law.
Copy of this order be sent to DRT-II, Delhi for information and compliance.