MS GEETA CHAUDHARY vs CANARA BANK AND ORS on 15 October 2026

1. Sh. R. P. Vats, Advocate for the appellant stated on instructions that he is not representing the appellant and accordingly he may be discharged. Sh. R. P. Vats, Advocate is accordingly discharged on behalf of the appellant.

2. Sh. Pawash Piyush, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf the appellant.

3. The appellant filed the S.A. bearing no. 248/2021 titles as **Geeta Chaudhary V Canara Bank & others** which was stated to be pending before the DRT-III, Delhi. The DRT-III, Delhi vide order dated 19.03.2019 has declined to grant the interim protection to the appellant. The relevant portion of the order dated 19.03.2019 is reproduced as under:

7. Whereas, on behalf of Karnataka Bank Ltd. another set of documents have been placed on record i.e. allotment letter dated 18.02.1982 issued by DDA in favour of Krishan Kumar Jolly, conveyance deed dated 15.10.2008 executed by DDA in favour of Krishan Kumar Jolly, sale deed dated 18.11.2008 executed by Krishan Kumar Jolly in favour of Daljeet Singh and Ranjeet Singh and sale deed dated 26.03.2010 executed by Daljeet Singh and Ranjeet Singh in favour of Sandeep Aggarwal. Apart that, in another sale deed dated 26.03.2010 executed by Daljeet Singh and Ranjeet Singh in favour of Sandeep Aggarwal, on which Karnataka bank is relying, does not bear the signatures of the Sub-Registrar on the second last page of the said sale deed, whereas the sale deed dated 26.03.2010, which is in possession of Canara Bank, bears the signatures of Sub-Registrar on the second last page of sale deed.

8. Apparently, the title documents, which are in possession of Karnataka Bank Ltd. are scanned copies, whereas the title documents in possession of Canara Bank appears to be genuine in nature, therefore, the applicant is not a bonafide purchaser of the property in question. Hence, no prima facie case has been made out in favor of the applicant and the balance of convenience also does not lies in favor of the applicant for granting interim injunction. Accordingly, the prayer for interim injunction stands declined.

4. Sh. Ashish Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no. 1 / Canara Bank stated that SA bearing no. 248/2021 was filed on 15.03.2019 and may be pending for consideration before the DRT-III, Delhi. However, it is further submitted that the O.A. bearing TA No. 193/2023 titled as **Canara Bank v Subh Jewellers** has also been filed by the Canara Bank which is also stated to be pending.

5. The impugned order was passed on 19.03.2019 whereby interim protection was not granted to the appellant and the SA filed by the appellant is stated to be pending. Accordingly the present appeal under the given facts and circumstances is disposed of with the direction given to the DRT-III, Delhi to decide the SA bearing no. 248/2021 filed on 15.03.2019 in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from today. All the rights and contentions of the parties to the present appeal shall remain open to be taken before the DRT during the trial of the SA bearing no. 248/2021.

7. The appellant shall also be at liberty to file appropriate application narrating the subsequent events happened after passing of the impugned order before the DRT.

8. The copy of this order be sent to DRT-III, Delhi for information and compliance.

\_\_\_\_\_ (Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain) Chairperson

-P\$