Disposed¶25

Rupali Khanna v. Canara Bank & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/1365/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration/recall application under Section 151 CPC; recall of order dated 16.02.2026 dismissing main writ petition as withdrawn; vacation and restoration of interim order dated 02.02.2026; stay of auction and sale process; SARFAESI sale notice dated 13.11.2025; Sale Certificate issued 03.01.2026; property at Khewat No. 391, Village Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana; Canara Bank; Rs. 50 lakhs deposit with Registrar General; infructuous application; liberty to initiate appropriate legal actions.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; application found infructuous and disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate legal actions in accordance with law. ¶25

Rupali Khanna Vs Canara Bank & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; application found infructuous and disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate legal actions in accordance with law.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under S. 151 CPC should be allowed, i.e., the order dated 16.02.2026 recalled, W.P.(C) 1365/2026 revived to its original file and number to be heard on merits, and the interim order dated 02.02.2026 restored. +1 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the respondent Bank's statement that the property in question had been sold under SARFAESI proceedings prior to 02.02.2026 and a Sale Certificate issued to the successful purchaser on 03.01.2026, the Court held the application (seeking recall of the order dated 16.02.2026, revival of the main petition and restoration of the interim order) to be infructuous; the Court did not adjudicate the allegation of misstatement by counsel ('Be that as it may').

¶24

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate legal actions in accordance with law.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Jasmeet Singh, J.), order dated 16.03.2026 in W.P.(C) 1365/2026 / CM APPL. 15785/2026 under S. 151 CPC: the petitioner sought recall of the order dated 16.02.2026 — by which her main petition seeking stay of the SARFAESI auction of industrial property at Village Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana was dismissed as withdrawn and the interim stay dated 02.02.2026 (granted subject to deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs) was vacated — together with revival of the petition and restoration of the interim order. Counsel for Canara Bank (R-1) stated that the property had been sold under SARFAESI proceedings even prior to 02.02.2026 and a Sale Certificate had been issued to the successful purchaser on 03.01.2026. Holding the application infructuous on that basis (and without adjudicating the alleged misstatement by counsel), the Court disposed of the application, leaving the petitioner at liberty to initiate appropriate legal actions in accordance with law.

¶1

$~97

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1365/2026 ( Disposed of )

¶4

RUPALI KHANNA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Rahul Yadav, Ms. Minakshi Yadav, Ms. Sanya Verma, Advs. versus

¶6

CANARA BANK & ORS. .....Respondents

¶7

Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh, Adv. for R1 CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 16.03.2026 CM APPL. 15785/2026

¶11

This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking the following prayers:-

¶12

“a) Recall the order dated 16.02.2026 passed in W.P.(C) 1365/2026 titled “Rupali Khanna v. Canara Bank & Ors”; b) Revive the W.P.(C) 1365/2026 titled “Rupali Khanna v. Canara Bank & Ors” to its original file and number and be heard on merits;

¶13

c) Restore the interim order dated 02.02.2026 passed in W.P.(C) 1365/2026;”

¶14

For the reasons stated in the application, issue notice.

¶15

Mr. Singh, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

¶16

The main petition was filed seeking stay of the auction and sale process in respect of property i.e., “All that part and parcel of the built-up industrial

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/03/2026 at 13:31:43

¶19

property bearing Khewat No. 391, Khata No. 510, Kila No. 102 / 3 Min , Village Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana-131028”, pursuant to a sale notice dated 13.11.2025 passed under SARFAESI proceedings.

¶20

Vide order dated 02.02.2026 passed in the main petition, this Court granted interim Order in favour of the petitioner, subject to deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs with the Registrar General, Delhi High Court.

¶21

On 16.02.2026, the counsel on record for the petitioner sought to withdraw the main petition on the ground that the petitioner has stopped co-operating with the counsel. Based on the said statement, the main petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the interim Order was vacated vide order dated 16.02.2026 passed in the main petition.

¶22

The present application has been filed stating that the counsel for the petitioner made a wrong statement and there were no such instructions from the petitioner.

¶23

Be that as it may, Mr. Singh, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 1 Bank and states that the petitioner has mislead the Court and even prior to the order dated 02.02.2026 the property in question has been sold under SARFAESI proceedings and a Sale Certificate has been issued to the successful purchaser on 03.01.2026.

¶24

For the said reasons, the present application is infructuous and the petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate legal actions in accordance with law.

¶25

The present application is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶26

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶27

MARCH 16, 2026/AS

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/03/2026 at 13:31:43

Rupali Khanna v. Canara Bank & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupali Khanna v. Canara Bank & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bindhya Bashini Traders Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sunita Devi Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited (Brpl)

Surender Kumar Sharma Vs Rajesh Ramnani, Chairman of the Monitoring Committee of Ansal Urban Condominiums Private Limited, &

Aon Consulting Private Limited Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre & Ors.

Yashika Malik Vs Union of India & Ors.

Refinitiv Us Llc Vs the Income Tax Officer Circle Int. Tax 1(3)(1) New Delhi

Om Prakash Dabas & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Interocean Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Canara Bank & Anr.

Gopal Krishan Aggarwal Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Divya Mattey and Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Maharaja Agrasain College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Harvinder Singh Sethi Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Lalit Anand Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

K C Aggarwal Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr.