JAIBIR PROPERTIES PVT LTD vs ARCIL AND ORS on 14 September 2026

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi APPEAL No'28 of 2025 JAIBIR PROPERTIES PW.LTD. VS ARCIL AND OTHERS Present: Reserved on: 07'08'2026 Pronounced on : 14'09'2026 Shri Narinder Singh, counsel for appellan[' Ms. Usha Singh, counselfor respondent FI' Shri Mayank, ProxY counsel for Ms' Reena Jain Malhotra, counselfor respondent no'3 to

11. None for other resPondents' Matter is taken through V.C'lHybrid mode'

2. Appeal no.2812025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 30 of the RDB Act against the order dated L7.06.2025 passed in RC no. 363/2019 with the prayer that the order dated 17'06'2025 be quashed/set aside to the extent where the property of the appellant has been put up for sale, and the appellant, in view of the illegal acts of omissions and commissions by the respondents, has suffered on account of their negligence, connivance and willful illegal acts as public servants in breach of public trust, in collusion with tle borrowers, mental agonY, massive cardiac cau$ng attacks unwarranted leading to hospitalization and resultant financial burden; in addition to the amount of price consideration paid for the property and the interest accrued at the rate of 18o/o p.a., the counterclaim of the appellant be awarded'

3. The Ld. Counsel of the appellant has submitted that vide order datect 17.06.2025 passed by Ld' RO-I, DRT-II, New Delhi in RC no.363 of 2019 (OA no'299 of 1998), the objection :pp!:.3tiT preferred bv the 1.9{, appellant vide diary no.13883 dated 19.11.2019 has been dismissed, thereby paving the way for illegal sale of the property of the appellant of which he is the lawful owner and the subject property was never been mortgaged by the appellant. It is submitted that the subject propefty is an agricultural propefi restricted by law for non-agricultural purposes and mandatorily required for registration of charge/lien in revenue records. It is submitted that even othenarise, the subject property has been fraudulently mortgaged by Mrs. Sunita Verma/respondent no.xi in connivance with respondent no. ii and q the subject property was under restraint/ stay on sale/alienation by the orders of Financial C-ommissioner, Delhi and Hon'ble Delhi High Court had passed orders for maintaining status quo during the period 1991 to 2005 and appears to have been deceitfully mortgaged in by misrepresentation/ fraud connivance with officials of bank. It is submitted that the aforesaid stay was vacated on 06.04.2005 and the appellant purchased the said properfy on 21.10.2005 from respondent no.xi. It is submitted that the appellant was not a party to the RDB Act 1993 proceedings in front to Ld. DRT-II in which Ld. DRT-II had passed the expafte final order dated 17.07.2019 for issuance of the recovery ceftificate to sell the mortgaged properties having one of the subject property owned by the appellant. It is submifted that consequently the appellant moved Civil Court and Criminal Court to seek legal remedies and save his fraudulently mortgaged propefi. It is submitted that the Ld. RO dismissed the objections without taking into consideration sub-judice Civil Case and Criminal Case of fraud pending adjudication with Dwarka Court, of Delhi pertaining to mortgaging appellant's property. It is submitted that the appellant is 9a Appeal to.28/2025

law-abiding citizen of India. It is submitted that the appellant had purchased in good faith and with honest intentions 14 Bighas and 14 Biswas of agricultural land situated in Khasra no.96/3 Min. and 3/1(2-8), 1 (1- l2), 2 (3-6) and Khasra no. 6512t Min. (1-12), ZZ(4-L6) and 2311 (1-0) situated in village Bijwasan from respondent no.xi in 2005 after vacation of restrainflstay by Honble Delhi High Court for his bonafide needs at the cost of Rs.20 Lacs. and at the time of purchase of the land, the appellant with reasonable care found out there was no notice or encumbrance over the aforesaid land either existing in revenue records or in the knowledge of villagers nor with authorities. However, in November 20t9, the appellant was shocked to know that respondent no. 2 in connivance and conspirary with respondent no. xi and v had defrauded the appellant and had concealed the fact that the aforesaid land was illegally mortgaged prior to execution of sale to the appellant and the subject propefi continues to remain mortgaged with respondent no. ii who further assigned to respondent no. i and as consequence the Ld.RO-I of DRT-II, Delhi has commenced proceedings of auction of the aforesaid propefi to recover loans advanced to respondent no. iii. It is submitted that the respondent no. xi sold the agricultural land through registered sale deed dated 21.10.2005 registered on 2G.10.2005 for a sum of Rs. 20 Lacs to the appellant and was duly entered in the revenue records of lands by patwari/ Tehsildar. Accordingly, the entries to this effect of purchase from respondent no. xi in favour of the appellant was made in Fardflamabandi dated

20. L2.2005.It is submitted that the title of the aforesaid property was derived by the respondent no. xi in two parts by way of two different registered title deeds, r$ j

Appeal no.2812025 4 however, at the time of sale of the above mentioned propefi to the appellant, it was assured and promised by the respondent no. xi that original of the first registered title deed dated 17.12.1997 measuring 2 Bighas and 8 Biswas of description Khasra no.96l3lt (t- 00), 96/3 min(1-08) was available. The other registered title deed dated 11.09.1985 measuring t2 Bighas and 6 biswas with description of land as Mustatil no.65, Killa no. 21(1-12), 22(4-tO), 23lL(t-0), Mustatit no.96, Killa no.1(1-12), 2(3-6) was misplaced. It is submitted that the respondent no. xi sold the entire propefi through single sale deed in favour of appellant in the iear 2005. It is submitted that the first original tifle deed dated L7.L2.t997 of description Khasra no.96l3lL (1-00), 96/3 min (1-08) of the aforesaid property measuring 2 Bighas and 8 Biswas was handed over to the appellant by the respondent no.xi at the time of sale on 21.10.2005. It is submitted that for the second original title deed dated 11.09.1985 measuring 12 Bighas and 6 biswas with description of land of the above said property as Mustatil no.65, Killa no.21(1-12), 22(4-16), Z3lt(t-}), Mustatil no.96, Killa no.1(1-12), 2(3-6), the respondent no. xi fraudulently induced and convinced the appellant that the subject title deed is misplaced and presently she. would handover photocopy of the second original tifle deed and would give original second tiUe deed to the appellant immediately on being traced. It is submitted that the respondent no. xi gave even the Jamabandi of the aforesaid propefi in which no mortgage or any other encumbrance was shown on the aforesaid property. It is submitted that the appellant with due diligence and reasonable care carried out verification of title of the aforesaid land having description in both the title deeds from the rerelygryds and found out that )9i the aforesaid property mentioned in both the tifle deeds is mutated in name of respondent no. xi and free from all encumbrances as per information available that time. It is submitted that in the subject sale deed, it is explicitly mentioned that the property is free from all encumbrances. It is submitted that the appellant is in continued physical possession of the aforesaid land since the execution of the sale deed of the aforesaid land on 21.10.2005 till now. However, the sale proclamation notice of the aforesaid property has been served by RO, DRT-II, Delhi notice dated 22.10.2019. It is submitted that the appellant has come to know of the sale proclamation notice only in November 2019 that is after 14 years of purchase of the aforesaid propefi once the settling sale proclamation notice dated Z2.lO.ZOtg issued by RO, DRT was served upon this property, which is also effected by adverse possession law. It is submitted that on inquiry from the environmen! the appellant has come to kno-w that the respondent no. xi in collusion with the respondent no. ii and V had falsely the aforesaid mortgaged agriculture property by equitable moftgage with respondent no. ii on 13.02.1996 by depositing the original second tiUe deed of the aforesaid property to secure a loan from respondent no. ii for respondent no. iii wherein respondent no. xi stood as a guarantor. It is submitted that at the time of mortgage of the aforesaid property with description in second tifle deed, the title of the aforesaid property was disputed and there was a stay on this property since 14.12.1990. It is submitted that as per entries made on Fardl Jamabandi dated 20.12,2005, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Case no.3904/90 dated 14.12.1990 Smt. Shanti Devi vs. FC Delhi 65/21-22-23, 96lt-Z has given directions for status quo. s9 nsequently the Finance

Commissioner in FC case no.llslgLtC,.A dated 16.10.1991 no.65l2L-22-23l1 has ordered stay on the aforesaid property till disposal of the case. It is submitted that the stay was finally vacated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 06.04.2005, as per details available on the aforesaid Jamabandi. It is submitted that the appellant was sold the aforesaid property by respondent no. xi after the subject stay was vacated on the aforesaid property. Thus, the mortgage of the aforesaid property by respondent no. xi with respondent no. ii on 13.02.1996 that is during the period of subject stay was hit by Lispendens and hence is voidable. It is submitted that respondent no. ii being in the business of lending loans knew very well that the mortgaged property is agriculture land and can be mortgaged only by registered mortgage and not by equitable mortgage. However, respondent no. ii deliberately and intentionally got the aforesaid property moftgaged by equitable moftgage and moreover respondent no. ii did not get the aforesaid mortgaged land registered as charged / lien in revenue records in his favour because revenue officials would not have permitted the mutation/mortgage" Thereafter, the respondent no. xi and respondent no. iii defaulted in making payment of the loan taken from the bank. Thereafter, respondent,no. ii has proceeded ahead with assignment of debt/securities in favour of respondent no. i of the aforesaid propefi to recover their loan amount from respondent no. iii wherein respondent no. xi stood as a guarantor. Subsequently, respondent FI has acquired the secured assets including the aforesaid property from respondent no. ii to recover the loan amount. It is submitted that the appellant had filed a Civil Suit for Declaration of Suit for tiUe ,'M/S Jaibir Properites h/t. Ltd. Vs. Suni 'g$ Verma and Ors.," having

case no.CS DJ ADJ ttl2lZz in the Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and the same is pending adjudication. It is submitted that the Ld. RO-I, DRT-II was informed of the filing of aforesaid Civil Case in Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and the Ld. RO has also mentioned in his daily order dated 24.0L.2023 the aforesaid Civil Case. It is submitted that the appellant has filed a criminal complaint for offences with the Delhi police against respondent no. xi for playing fraud upon the appellant by selling the aforesaid property by concealing the fact that at the time of sale of the aforesaid property, this property was already iilegally mortgaged with respondent no. ii. It is submitted that the police authorities have filed charge sheet in the Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in which respondent no. v and xi have been made accused. It is submitted that police authorities even came to the office of DRT-II to make discreet enquiries before charge sheet. It is submitted that the respondent no. v and xi have made submitted on 24.04.2025 in the court where aforesaid Criminal Case is subjudice that settlements talks are going on between the parties and they are hopeful that the matter will be settled between the parties within few days. It is submitted that the aforesaid land is located between outer peripheral boundary of Bijwasan village in outer periphery of the Delhi State touching Haryana State. It is submitted that as per the Master plan of Delhi 2021 (MPD 2021), the green belt extends from the boundary of the national capital up to a depth of one peripheral revenue village boundary. Thus the aforesaid land falls in green belt and is used purely for agriculture purposes. It is submitted that the Ld. RO-I, heard the final arguments of the objector on 10.06.2025 without any pre-notice of final arguments in any of the previous hearin ,5Q gs. It is

Appeal no,28/2025

submitted that the Ld. RO- I, had chaired the case hearings of the instant case on two occasions prior and in none of these hearings, he exhibited any signs of final hearing on 10.06.2025. It is submitted that the appellant submitted the complete documents pertaining to the Civil and the Criminal case with the Ld. Recovery Officer on 13.06.2025. It is submitted that the Ld. RO pronounced the order dated 17.06.2025 and shockingly the Ld. Recovery Officer did not bke into account the submitted documents pertaining to the civil and criminal Grse nor did he made a mention of these documents in his impugned order thereby against the natural justice. It is submitted that the order dated tt.06.2025 is illegal, perverse and deserves to be set aside inter alia, on the following grounds which are mutually exclusive of and without to each other. It is submitted that the respondent no. ii did not get the above said land registered for charge/lien in revenue records deliberatety to commit fraud and fraud vitiates all solemn acts. It is submitted that since there was stay on sate of the property by the Finance Commissioner and the Hon,ble Delhi Court has passed orders for maintaining status quo during the period of mortgage of the property, the moftgage of the property is void atrinito. It is submitted that the Ld. RO while passing the impugned order has not dealt with the above said ground. It is submitted that the banking norms as atso the indigenous rules and regulations of the respondent no. ii were flouted with impunity by its officiats, who conspired, connived with respondent no.v & xi, while creating moftgage of the subject property of the appellant and this fact has been totally ignored by the Ld. RO while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that the subject property is an agricultural gop?ly, and does not fall eai Appeal no.2\/2025 g under RDBF Act 1993 and the order dated L7.O6.ZOZ5 passed by Ld. RO is liable to be set aside on the ground that Ld. RO did not consider the nature & usage of subject property and passed the order in whimsical manner without having jurisdiction for civil & criminal disputes pending adjudication. It is submitted that the Ld. DRT-II had passed the ex parte final order dated 17.07.2019 for issue of the recovery certificate to sell mortgaged propefties including the subject propefi of the appellant also barred under the law, amounting to audi alterum paftem. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Honbte Supreme Couft in the matter of Commission of Customs, Kandla Vs. M/s Essar Oil Limited & Ors. 2004 (g) Scate 570, the judgment dated 19.02.t997 of the Honbte Supreme Couft in the matter of Tayabbhai M. Bagasanrualta Vs, Hind Rubber Industries hlt. Ltd., judgment dated 04.05.1962 passed by the HonUe Supreme Couft in the matter of East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta Vs. Collector of Customs Calcutta and the judgment dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bank of India vs Smt. prabha Jain. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present appeal may be allowed.

4. The Ld. Counsel of the respondent no.1/ARCIL has filed the reply to the appeal. In the reply, it is submitted that the appellant has filed the present appeal in connivance with the respondent no.3 to 9 with the sole view to blackmail as well as to delay the recovery proceedings being RC no.363/2019 of the respondent FllCertificate Holder. It is submitted that the appellant is the third party and has no locus standi to file and maintain the present aOOeal ggainst the respondent FI ,sD

Appeal no.2812025 as well as subject property. It is submitted that the present misc appeal is defective and liable to be dismissed on the ground that the present misc appeal is filed through Sh. Chander Bhan S/o Sh. Kapoor ctaiming himself the authorized signatory but no board resolution or authorization is filed along_with the present appeal. It is submitted that the appellant has no cause of action to file and maintain the appeal against the respondent FI as the respondent no. 11/Smt. Sunita Verma had created the mortgage over the subject property by deposit of title deeds of the mortgaged property on 13.02.1996 in favor of respondent no.2/Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. It is submitted that in terms of Section 4g of TpAn the appellant has no right, tiile or interest in the mortgaged property. It is submitted that since the borrowers/guarantors/mortgagor failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of repayment, the assignor of the respondent FI left with no option and filed OA no. 2991t998 before DRT, Delhi and the same was allowed vide final order dated l7.O7.ZOt9 whereby validity of moftgage over the subject property has already been upheld in favor of the respondent. It is submitted that consequence of passing the final order dated L7.07.20L9, a recovery certificate no. 26312019 was issued and the proceedings qua the RC no.263/2019 is pending for execution before the Ld. RO-I, DRT-II, Delhi. It is submitted that the appellant has also filed identical Civil Suit bearing CS DJ ADJltt2ZlZO22 tiiled as M/s Jaibir Properties vs Sunita Verma and Ors. before the Ld. ADJ, Dwarka Coufts, Delhi ctaiming his rights over the mortgaged propefi and the same is pending adjudication before the Ld. ADJ, Dwarka Coufts, Delhi. It is submitted that the moftgage created by respondent no.11 in favor of the assiOng- of the respondent FI on sp-

Appeal no.28/2025 t t 13.02.1996 whereas the sale deed has been subsequenuy executed by respondent no.l1 in favor of the objector on 21.10.2005. It is submitted that the mortgage of the subject property in favor of the respondent FI is much prior in time and any subsequent sale is bad in law. It is submitted that the sate deed dated 11.09.1985 regarding the moftgaged property had been deposited by respondent no.l1 with the assignor bank on 13.02.1996 and therefore, the contention of the appellant regarding the tiUe deed being misplaced is false and frivolous. It is submitted that M/s Eagle Garments hrt Ltd., Mr. Harish Kumar, Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Mr. Surender Kumar, Mr, Sanjiv Kumar, Mrs. Meera Kumari, Mrs. Suman Kumari, Mr. N.K Verma and Mrs. Sunita Verma (borrowers/guarantor) availed many credit facilities from Catholic Syrian bank Ltd. (later assigned to respondent FI) and in order to secure the loan, the aforesaid borrowers/guarantors executed Agreement of Guarantee in favour of assignor bank. It is submitted that respondent no.11 secured the credit facility sanctioned to aforesaid borrowers by mortgaging her agricultural property being land measuring 12 bighas and 6 biswas, mustatil no.65, Killa no.21 (1-12), 22(4-16), 2311 (L-0), Mustatit no.96, Kiila no.1 (1-12), 2(3-6) situated in village Bijwasan, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi and Mrs. Suman Kumari also mortgaged her property being 1/5th share in property no. 3, Surendra Nath Banerjee Road, Calcutta 700013 in favour of the assignor bank. It is submitted that after the default of the aforesaid borrowers in complying with the terms and conditions of sanction in respect of repayment and after slipping the account into NpA category, the assignor bank filed an OA no.299lL99} before the Hon,ble DRT- Delhi which was contested II

all parties including

Appeal no.28/2025 12 respondent no. 3 to 11 before this Hon,bte DRT II, Delhi. It is submitted that the Hon,ble DRT_II, Delhi was pleased to allow the OA no.299/199g vide final order dated 77.07.2019. It is submitted that the appellant filed its objections under Rule 11 of Second Schedule of Income Tax Act 1961 against the sale proclamation thereby claiming its ownership right on the basis of subsequent sale deeds of 2005 and the said objections of the appellant was dismissed by the Ld. RO, DRT_II, Delhi vide detailed order dated L7.O6.ZO2S. It is submitted that the respondent FI has filed reply to the objections filed by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant has flled the present appeal claiming to be the owner of the subject property and further admitted that the sale transactions of the appellant is subsequent to the mortgaged of the respondent FI over the said propety. Hence, there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent FI. It is submitted that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed only on the sole ground that the grievance of the appellant against sale transactions are against respondent no.11, and respondent had created equitable mortgaged over the mortgaged property in favor of the assignor bank prior to entering into the alleged sale transactions of the year 2005. Hence, the appellant has no locus standi to flle and maintain the present appeal as righfly held by Ld. RO as there is no privity of contract between appellant and the answering Respondent in regards to the sale transactions. It is submitted that there is no substance in the present appeal. It is submitted that the plea of restrain/stay on sale/alienation by the orders of Financial Commissioner, Delhi and Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed orders for maintaining status quo during the period 1991 to 2005 is entirely new in the 9\ present appeal

Appeal no.28/2025 t3 which was neither taken nor sought to amend in the objections filed by the appellant before Ld. RO, DRT_II, Delhi. It is submitted and also held in the catena of Judgments passed by the Hon,ble Apex Court that fresh plea is not permitted at the appeal stage. Further, the said plea is misleading as no such order was ever annexed by the appellant either in the present appeal or before Ld. RO, DRT-II, Delhi. It is submitted that the Ld. RO, DRT-II has righily dismissed the objections of the appellant by holding that the tiile of the appellant is defective and subsequent. It is submitted that the sale of 2005 is in connivance with the borrowers/ guarantors/ mortgagor. It is submitted that as far as the Jamabandi is concerned, this is the fresh plea before this Hon'ble Tribunal and has no snctity in the eye of law to question upon the legalcharge ofthe respondent FI over the mortgaged property. It is submitted that the moftgaged of the respondent FI over the subject property is not even disputed by the original moftgagor, Hence, the appellant has no locus to raise question upon the prior mortgage of the respondent FL It is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur and. Ors. 1996 (6) (SCC) 223 set aside the orders passed by the (i) High Court dismissing the second appeal and (ii) Additional District Judge and held that Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. It is submitted that the Ld. RO, DRT-II while pronouncing the impugned order 17.06.2025 has taken each and every submissions of the parties and passed impugned order dated 17.06.2025 righfly. It is submifted lant has no cause or that the Appel 9a title in the mortgaged Appeal no.2812025 t4 property to file and maintain the present appeal. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed.

5. Heard the Ld. Counsels of appellant & respondent FI and prory counsel for respondent no. 3 to 1l and perused the record.

6. The first contention of the Ld. courtsel for the appellant is that the subject property is an agriculture property, therefore, the same cannot be proceeded under the RDB Act. It is further submitted that the agriculture properfy cannot be mortgaged with the respondent FI for sanction of the loan for non-agriculture purpose. On the other hand the Ld. counsel for the respondent FI has submitted that the respondent FI has filed the OA against the defendants and the same has been allowed by the Ld. DRT and the recovery ceftificate has been issued. It is submitted that the appellant is not the owner ofthe subject property and has purchased the propefi after mortgage of the property in favour of the respondent FI. Therefore, the appellant has no right to challenge the same. In this regard I have perused the record. From perusai of the record it is clear that the subject property has been moftgaged with the respondent FI. The loan was sanctioned and the borrower has failed to maintain the financial disciptine, therefore, the respondent FI has filed the original application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the original application and has issued the recovery certiflcate. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the agriculture property cannot be mortgaged for non-agriculture purpose has no fqrce. If the mortgaged property is agriculture^ggplry the secured creditor '<0

Appeal no.2812025 t5 cannot proceed against that property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. There is no provision in the RDB Act that the application under Section 19 of the RDB Act cannot be Rled against the agriculture property. Therefore, the contention of the appellant has no force. There is no provision that an agriculture property cannot be mortgaged for a loan of non-agriculture purpose, More over there is no evidence that the property is not being used as commercial propefi. Merely because the property is recorded in the Revenue record as agriculture property does not mean that it is being used for agriculture purpose. The Honble Supreme Court in ITC Ltd. Vs. Blue Coast HotelAIR 2018 Supreme Court 3063 has held that if the propefi is being used for non- agriculture purpo-se, the same cannot be deemed to be an agriculture properfy merely because there is a entry of the same in the Revenue record. Therefore, the contention of the appellant has no force. 7.. The next contention of the appellant is that the appellant has purchased the subject property from defendant no.1l by virtue of a sale deed dated 21.10.2005. It is submitted that at the time of executing sale deed the defendant no.ll has fraudulently induced and convinced the appellant that the subject tiUe deed is misplaced and presently she would hand over the photocopy of the title deeds and will give the original title deeds to the appellant immediately on being traced. It is submitted that the defendant no.1l has forged the appellant and therefore, the appellant is the true owner of the property. On the other hand the Ld. counsel for the respondent has submitted that the mortgage in favour of the respondent is prior to the sale in favour of the the appellant and therefore ,$ age will prevail

Appeal no.2812025 16 and the appellant cannot be deemed to be the owner of the subject property. From perusal of the record it is clear that the appellant has admitted in the appeal that the sale deed in favour of the appellant is subsequent to the mortgage in favour of the respondent FI. Therefore, the claim of the respondent FI will prevail as per Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant has himself admitted that the defendant no.1l has not handed over the original title deeds of the property and defrauded him. This proves that the appellant has not taken due diligence and has purchased the propefi without obtaining the original title deeds. Therefore, the contention of the appellant has no force.

8. The next contention of the appellant is that the appellant has filed a Civil Suit before the competent Civil Court and therefore, the Ld. Recovery Officer should hold their hand till the disposal of Suit by the competent Civil Court. But the contention of the appellant has no force. The Ld. Recovery Officer is bound to obey the recovery certificate issued by the Ld. Tribunal. Therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Ld. RO.

9. In the light of the above, the Appeal no.28/2025 is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

Appeal no.2812025 is dismissed. File be consigned record. -..':--r'r'/"-' 9e (SUSHIL AR PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi Dated :14.09.2026 r)