Mr. Ankur Mahindroo, Mr. Mohit Dagar and Mr. Rohan Taneja, Advs.) v. PREETI BANSAL WIFE OF

property‘). As per a mutual understanding, the Plaintiff was to demolish and reconstruct the entire property, post which the Ground Floor and First Floor would be owned by the Plaintiff, while the Second and Third Floors would belong to Defendant No. 1.

4. Subsequently, the agreement was executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, formalizing the terms of the proposed redevelopment. Along with the agreement, Defendant No. 1 executed various supporting documents, including General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Affidavit, and Will in favour of the Plaintiff to enable necessary approvals and permissions from the concerned authorities. In furtherance thereto, the Plaintiff paid a sum of INR 1.2 Crores and took possession of the property.

5. However, as per the Plaintiff’s case, it later came to light that Defendant No. 1 had also agreed the Second Floor of the same property to one Mrs. Kusum Srivastava. Further complications arose when Defendant Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:13.08.2025 11:17:53 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV 3 No. 6 i.e., Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‗Bank‘) issued a legal notice alleging that the suit property was mortgaged with it and that the bank was in possession of the original title documents. The Plaintiff responded, asserting its bona fide possession and development of the property based on the agreement.

6. The Plaintiff subsequently filed police complaints against Defendants No. 1 and 2, alleging offences related to cheating and conspiracy. In connection with the same issues, FIR No. 0125/2016 was registered at Safdarjung Enclave Police Station under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‗IPC‘). Meanwhile, the Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‗SARFAESI Act‘) against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, issuing notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and seeking possession of the suit property. It was only upon the visit of the Bank's officials to the property that the Plaintiff came to know about the aforenoted notices.

7. In response, the Plaintiff addressed a letter to the Bank asserting its lawful possession arising out of the collaboration agreement and later filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‗DRT‘). The said application was dismissed, and the Plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‗DRAT‘). The Plaintiff issued notices to Defendants No. 1 to 3 and the Bank. Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:13.08.2025 11:17:53 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV 4

8. During the pendency of the appeal, as per the Plaintiff’s case, unknown persons approached the Plaintiff with a letter purportedly evidencing that a One-Time Settlement between Defendants No. 1 to 3 and the Bank. The Plaintiff continued to prosecute its appeal and also issued notices to prevent third-party interests in the suit property. A public notice was issued on behalf of Defendants No. 4 and 5 expressing interest in purchasing the suit property, to which the Plaintiff raised objections. Subsequently, the Plaintiff received intimation from the Sub-Registrar that Defendant No. 1 had attempted to execute a sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 4.

9. It is under the aforenoted circumstances, the Plaintiff has approached this Court by way of the instant suit.

10. This matter was earlier called out on 11.07.2025. The Court directed for issuance of notice to the Defendants on applications bearing no. I.A. 16163/2025 (for ex-parte ad interim injunction) and I.A. 16164/2025 ( for exemption from pre-institution mediation under section 12A CCA, 2015).

11. The pleadings are completed with respect the aforenoted applications qua the Defendant nos. 1, 2, and 3. Arguments were advanced on the said applications. Submissions 12. Mr. Ankur Mahindro, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, submitted that Defendant No.1 has acknowledged the execution of the agreement before various authorities. He contended that the said agreement has neither been rescinded nor cancelled. According to him, the Plaintiff has consistently Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:13.08.2025 11:17:53 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV 5 demonstrated readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed in his favour and continues to do so. He pointed out that by the time the superstructure was completed, Defendant No.6 had already started objecting to the title documents pertaining to the suit property.

13. He further submits that the initial objection was raised as early as on

19.08.2015, casting doubts on the bona fides of Defendant No.1. He argues that Defendant No.1 failed to disclose in the agreement that the title documents were under mortgage with the Bank. He stated that on

26.09.2016, the Bank took possession of the suit property, which, as per his knowledge, remains with the Bank to date.

14. Learned counsel also drew the Court’s attention to a sequence of dates and events post-2015 to show that the Plaintiff has been actively pursuing remedies before the DRT and DRAT.

15. He asserted that due to the fraudulent acts of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff was compelled to initiate criminal proceedings. An FIR bearing No. 0126/16 was registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC against the said Defendants.

16. He further submitted that paragraph 50 of the plaint clarifies that the cause of action arose on 29.05.2025 when a public notice was issued by the counsel for Defendant Nos. 4 and 5, expressing their intent to purchase the suit property. In response, it is contended, the Plaintiff promptly objected and notified the concerned party about the existing collaboration agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1. He also stated that a legal notice was issued to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, asserting the Plaintiff’s rights and Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:13.08.2025 11:17:53 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV 6 objecting to any third-party transfer.

17. Learned counsel also submitted that a notice was sent to the concerned Sub-Registrar’s office, requesting that no document be registered contrary to the terms of the agreement. Furthermore, Mr. Mahindro additionally referred to the balance sheets placed on record, which reflect that despite the completion of the superstructure, the Plaintiff maintained a balance exceeding INR. 7 crores, indicating the financial capability of the Plaintiff to proceed with the construction and execution of the sale deed. He highlighted that the agreement does not stipulate a specific date for execution of the sale deed, and that the delay was due to various legal impediments, all attributable to the Defendants. He relied upon the decision of this Court in Grovy India v. Balbir Singh1, specifically referring to paragraphs 5, 6, 14, 21, and 73 of the judgment. He argues that the factual matrix of the present case closely resembles that of Grovy India.

18. Learned counsel also defended the challenge to the maintainability of the suit despite the absence of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Act, by asserting that urgent interim relief sought herein is essential to avoid frustration of the entire cause of action.

19. He emphasized that a sale deed has already been executed behind the Plaintiff’s back and has been presented for registration. Should the said sale deed be registered, he averred, it would entirely defeat the purpose of filing the civil suit. He relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Patil 1 2021 SCC Online Del 4783 Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:13.08.2025 11:17:53 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV 7 Automation v. Rakheja Engineers2, Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D.3, and M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.4, arguing that the Supreme Court has held that a suit is undoubtedly maintainable where urgent relief is genuinely sought.

20. He further contended that in the present case, urgent interim relief has been sought on the basis of substantial material, and therefore, the suit should not be dismissed merely for non-compliance of Section 12A of the Act.

21. Per contra, Mr. Siddharth Yadav, learned senior counsel for Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, submitted that the Plaintiff has taken inconsistent positions in the plaint. He argued that although the Plaintiff claims to have completed construction of the entire building, the photographs on record show that only the superstructure was constructed. He further asserted that for over a decade, from 2015 to 2025, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed.

22. Mr. Yadav highlighted a material non-disclosure by the Plaintiff, specifically, the fact that the matter had reached the Supreme Court and the SLP against the DRAT order was dismissed on 29.03.2019. He contended that any surviving cause of action should have been pursued at that time.

23. He further questioned as to what refrained the Plaintiff from filing a civil suit immediately after failing to secure relief from the DRT, DRAT,