Delhi High Court - Orders
Babita Kaur Bami & Anr vs Javinder Kaur Bami & Anr on 16 July, 2021
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 22/2021
BABITA KAUR BAMI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr Adv. with
Mr.Santosh Kumar, Mr.Chitvan
Singhal, Mr.Aayushmaan Vatsyayana
and Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Advs.
versus
JAVINDER KAUR BAMI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arush Bhandari, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 16.07.2021
CM APPL. 20963 - 20965/2021
Exemptions allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
FAO(OS) 22/2021
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 22.01.2021 and the consequential orders passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 445/2020 in the suit preferred by the Respondent against the Appellants and Axis Bank Limited which is arrayed as Respondent No.2 in the present appeal. The case set up by the Respondent No.1- Plaintiff in the suit was that she is the owner of the suit property bearing No. B-10/A, South Extension Part 2, Delhi-110049 admeasuring 200 sq. yards. It is the case that Defendant No.1 and 2 herein are the daughter-in-law and son and that they Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:23.07.2021 17:49:05 were instrumental in obtaining loans against the said property by executing documents with name of the Plaintiff by forging her signatures. The loan amount was being claimed by Axis Bank Limited i.e., Respondent No.2 herein. On 22.01.2021 the learned Single Judge formed a prima facie view that the Crime Branch, Delhi Police shall conduct an inquiry in the matter and the learned Judge also recorded that neither the Plaintiff nor Defendant No.1 and 2 i.e., the Appellants herein have an objection to the same. Consequently, Delhi Police was directed to conduct an inquiry in the matter and submit its report. It is further directed that if any cognizable offence is found to have been committed by any parties, the police is at liberty to register the First Information Report. When the matter was heard, the First Information Report, stands registered by the police.
2. Mr. Sethi learned senior counsel for the Appellants is primarily aggrieved by three directions issued by the learned Single Judge on 25.03.2021. First direction was to the effect that the Investigating Officer in the said FIR was appointed as the Receiver in respect of the first, second and third floors of the property aforesaid. The Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 and 2 were directed to remove all their articles from the said three floors of the property and the IO was directed to place locks in the said three floors. It is not even the Appellant's case that they are the owners of the property. They are in dispute with Respondent No.1- Plaintiff and they do not have any right to retain possession of any portion of the said property. That being the position in our view so far as the appointment of the receiver is concerned, grievance, if any, may be raised by Respondent No.1/Plaintiff. The Appellants can possibly have no grievance in that regard. The next direction issued by the learned Single Judge was to both the parties to file their Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:23.07.2021 17:49:05 affidavits of their assets in the format of Annexure A-1 to the judgment of M/s Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharia Raj Joint Venture 2016 SCC Online Del 182. Mr. Sethi has pointed out that the decision of the learned Single Judge in M/s Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been set aside by the Division Bench vide its judgment rendered on 05.07.2021 in EFA(OS)(COMM) NO.4/2021. In our view in any event there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to direct both parties to file the list of all their assets in terms of the said judgment. There is no money claimed in the present suit and even if there is money to be claimed by the Respondent bank, it is not clear as to against whom such a money claimed can be raised or decreed and when. Therefore, in our view there was no justification for the learned Single Judge, at such a preliminary stage, no money claim having been raised, to make a direction to parties to file affidavit of their assets - whether in compliance of M/s Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra), or otherwise. In any case the judgment in M/s Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been set aside by the Division Bench. Hence for the reasons stated above, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to that extent is set aside.
3. Mr. Sethi next submits that there was no justification for learned Single Judge to direct the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 and 2 to not to transfer alienate or create any third-party interest in respect of their assets to the extent of the claimed amount of the Axis Bank Limited, till the next date of hearing.
4. We find that the impugned order dated 25.03.2021 is an ad interim order. The interim applications are still pending consideration before the learned Single Judge and the submission of the Appellant that the loan was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:23.07.2021 17:49:05 only taken by Respondent No.1/Plaintiff knowingly and that she had executed the documents on her own as well as the stand of the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff that she has not taken any such loan could be examined by the learned Single Judge when the interim applications are decided. It shall be open to the Appellant to argue that the restraint against their transfer of, or any creation of third-party interest, in respect of their assets should not be made.
5. With the aforesaid observations we dispose of the petition.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J JULY 16, 2021 sr Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:23.07.2021 17:49:05