SUNITA SINGH vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS on 21 October 2026

1. The Central Bank of India, respondent no.1 filed O.A. bearing No. 125/2008 titled as **Central Bank of India v Raj Kumar Gautam and another** which was decided vide order dated 19.09.2014 and O.A. bearing No. 126/2008 titled as **Central Bank of India v Pushpa Rana and others** which was decided vide order dated 22.04.2014 and thereafter recovery proceedings were initiated.

2. The Recovery Officer-I attached to DRT-III, Delhi vide order dated 05.09.2017 has appointed the Court Receiver for taking the physical possession of the mortgaged properties i.e. two flats bearing No. G-1 and G-2, Ground Floor situated at Plot bearing No. P-92, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar, Delhi. The appellant being aggrieved filed the present appeals.

3. Sh. Harsh K. Sharma, Counsel (through Legal Aid) during the course of argument has referred the appeals bearing No. 54/2017 and 69/2017 titled as **Sunita Singh v Central Bank of India & others** which was decided vide order dated 09.10.2018 by the Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Delhi. The relevant portion of the order dated 09.10.2018 is reproduced is under:

10. Heard and the record has been perused thoroughly. In the present matter, it is to be submitted that on the previous date of hearing i.e. on 14.09.2018 Shri Vinod Kumar Chauhan, Chief Manager of Central Bank of India, ARM Branch, Karol Bagh, Delhi suffered a statement that recovery certificate in both the matters i.e. R.C. No. 176/2014 and R.C. No. 60/2014 have been satisfied by selling the ground floor, first floor and second floor in dispute, which consisting of S-1 and S-2 and both the recovery certificates have been closed. Further, it is stated that the respondent bank i.e. CBI is not going to take any further action with respect to the second floor of the property including portion belongs to the present appellant.

11. In the present matter, the ground floor portion i.e. G-1 and G-2 of the said property have been ordered to be sold by the Ld. Recovery Officer and there is nothing in the order passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer with respect to second floor, as such, the portion of the present appellant was not ever ordered to be sold by way of auction. Hence, it could not be said that the appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer of this Tribunal. Once, the statement has been suffered that the recovery certificates have been satisfied and the respondent bank i.e. CBI is not going to take any action qua the property of the appellant, nothing is survived in the present appeal, accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

12. During the course of arguments, the appellant had made a request that she may be permitted to use the common passage, stairs of the property and also permitted to visit the water tank etc. lying on the top of the property. Since, the stair etc. are common in nature, therefore, the appellant may be permitted to use common passage, stairs and also to visit water tank lying on the top of the property with respect to second floor as and when if so required, but with prior notice to auction purchaser of third floor.

4. Sh. Harsh K. Sharma, Counsel referred the sale notice dated 20.06.2017 where the subject properties were described as two flats bearing No. S-1 and S-2 situated on the second floor of the property bearing plot No. P-92, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi. He also referred another sale notice dated 30.09.2016 wherein the properties were described as G-1 and G-2 situated at Ground Floor of plot bearing No. P-92, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi. Sh. Harsh K. Sharma, Counsel for the appellant stated that flats No S-1 and S-2 situated at second floor at Plot No. 92, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi are owned and possessed by the appellant without any encumbrances. He further stated and argued that the sale notices dated 20.06.2017 and 30.09.2016 were factually incorrect as the loan transaction in question is nothing to do with the flats bearing No S-1 and S-2 situated on the second floor at Plot No.92, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi.

5. Sh. S.A. Khan, Counsel for respondent no.1 bank after referring the para no.10 to 12 as reproduced herein above stated on the basis of the submission made by Sh. Vinod Kumar Chauhan, Chief Manager of Central Bank of India, ARM Branch, Karol Bagh, Delhi that the mortgage properties were flats bearing No G-1 and G-2 situated on the Ground Floor of the plot bearing No. P-92, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi and possession of these flats have already been taken and thereafter put to auction. It is also clarified by Sh. S.A. Khan, Counsel for respondent no.1 that Flats No S-1 and S-2 on second floor at Plot No 92, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi have nothing to do and they were wrongly mentioned in the sale notices 20.06.2017 and 30.09.2016. He also referred the para no.10 of the impugned order dated 09.10.2018 wherein it is stated that the recovery proceedings arising out of R.C. bearing No. 176/2014 and 60/2014 in respect of the Flats No. S-1 and S-2 on second floor at Plot No.92, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi have already been closed and the respondent no.1 would not be taking any further action in respect of the two flats G-1 and G-2, Plot No.92, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi including the portion belonging to the appellant.

6. In view of the submissions made by Sh. S.A. Khan, Counsel for respondent no.1, the present appeals are disposed of with the clarification that the respondent no.1 out of the loan transaction subject matter of present appeals shall not take any action in respect of Flats No. S-1 and S-2 situated on the Second Floor of the property bearing No. P-92, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi and appellant shall continued to enjoy the benefit as per para no.12 of the order dated 09.10.2018. The present appeals along with pending application, if any, stand disposed of.

----- **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**

-N