This order dismisses a writ petition assailing a Debts Recovery Tribunal order rejected an application to implead the DDA, holding that the leasehold nature of the property does not require DDA impleadment.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~58.
SMT. SURINDER KAUR AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Praveen Suri, Advocate.
versus
M/S R B L BANK LIMITED AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
%
O R D E R 08.07.2019
CM APPL. 30059/2019
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7232/2019 and CM APPL. 30060/2019 & 30061/2019
The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi in S.A. No. 64/2018 preferred by the petitioners.
By the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected I.A. No. 241/2019 moved by the petitioners for impleadment of DDA on the ground that the mortgaged property - whereof 7/8th share is stated to have been mortgaged in favour of the secured creditor, was still undivided and is in the name of Veer
Pratap Singh. The Tribunal has rejected the application by observing that there is no need to implead the DDA as a party and, in case, the petitioners wish to rely upon, or produce any evidence in power and possession of the DDA, the same could be summoned from the DDA.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the mortgaged property is not a freehold property and, according to him, the creation of mortgage itself is illegal.
Be that as it may, in our view, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the petitioners‟ application for impleadment of DDA as a party. No relief is sought against the DDA and merely because the property may be leasehold, is no reason to implead the DDA as a party in the proceedings before the DRT.
We find no merit in this petition.
Dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
JULY 08, 2019 kd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal was correct in rejecting the application for impleadment of the Delhi Development Authority
Whether the nature of the mortgaged property being leasehold justifies impleadment of the DDA in DRT proceedings
SMT. SURINDER KAUR
M/S R B L BANK LIMITED
VIPIN SANGHI
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
