Sant Ram Yadav and Ors. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

I.A. No. 272/2022 In Appeal Dy. No. 37/2022 Date: 23.09.2022

Sant Ram Yadav & Ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Present: Shri S. K. Gupta, counsel for the appellants, Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, counsel for the respondent-Bank,

The office report dated 22.09.2022 shows that reply of the respondent-bank is on record, to which no rejoinder has been filed by the appellant. The said report further shows that as per tracking report, the notice sent to the respondent no. 2 has been served, but no one is present today on behalf of the said respondent.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties on the urgency application filed by the respondent-Bank.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the interim order dated 02.05.2022 was obtained by the appellant by giving wrong fact before this Tribunal that the respondent no. 2-Auction Purchaser is in possession of the property and is changing the nature of the property by demolishing the same and is also trying to create third party right over the property in question. Therefore, the proceedings of the case may be expedited.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not in possession of the property and the possession has already been given to the auction purchaser. Therefore, statement made earlier before this court is correct.

There is no good ground made out for expediting the proceedings of the case, hence, the urgency application is rejected.