Smt Arpita Shukla v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Appeal Dy. No. 265/2022 Date: 22.07.2022

Smt. Arpita Shukla Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Present: Shri Abhinav Gaur, counsel for the appellant,

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is neither borrower nor guarantor in the present case. Inspite of the same, the DRT has proceeded to dismiss the S.A. in a mechanical manner. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that vide registered sale deed dated 23.02.2006 Dharmendra Mishra- respondent no. 3 has himself stated that he had purchased the property from Shobha Mishra vide registered sale deed dated 26.09.2000.

It is contended that again Shobha Mishra sold the property on 16.02.2005 by playing fraud and respondent no. 3- Dharmendra Mishra took Car Loan from the respondent no. 1 and they have committed default, but the respondent no. 1 is trying to proceed against the appellant, who has no concern with the same, therefore, the interest of the appellant needs to be protected.

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, till the next date, the status quo qua the property in question, as it exists today, be maintained by all the parties concerned.

Issue notices to the respondents by two modes i.e. Registered Post with A.D. and Speed Post. Steps to be taken by the appellant within a week. Affidavit of service along with tracking report be filed by the next date.

List this case on 14.10.2022 for service.