Appellant and Respondents No. 2 and 3.

Appeal No. 11 of  2023 -DRAT-Kolkata
     IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
  Appeal No. 11 of 2023
          (Arising out of S.A. 240 of 2022 in DRT-II, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
Smt. Anshu Gupta, W/o Sanjay Kumar Gupta, residing at Flat No. 146, B-
Block, 4th Floor Gokuldham Society, Barkatpura, Hyderabad .
 … Appellant
         -Versus- 
1.
Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, 1th  Floor, North 
Side, R-Tech Park Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East)
Mumbai -400 063 Maharastra Represented by Its Authorised Officer;
2. 
Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta S/O Late Matadin Gupta, R/o. Flat No 109, 
1st  Floor, A-Block Gokuldham Society, Barkatpura Hyderabad;
3. 
Smt Sangeeta Gupta W/O Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta R/o. Flat No 109, 
1st Floor, A-Block Gokuldham Society, Barkatpura Hyderabad.
                       …  Respondents 
Counsel for the Appellant
…       Mr. Nemani Srinivas
Counsel for Respondent Bank  
…       Mr. A. Satyanarayana
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee
JUDGMENT                         :     12th October, 2023
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2nd January, 2023 passed
by 
Learned 
DRT-II, 
Hyderabad 
in 
I.A. 
1783 
of 
2022 
in 
S.A. 240 of 2022 Appellant preferred the appeal.
2.
As per the pleadings of the parties, Appellant preferred a 
SARFAESI Application, being S.A. 240 of 2022, for declaration of the 
Possession Notice dated 20th July, 2022 under Rule 8 (1) of the 
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 null and void and with 
consequential reliefs. Appellant is a third party to the SARFAESI 
proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 1.  Appellant entered into 
an agreement of sale dated 6th December, 2010 with Respondents No. 
2 and 3 for purchase of the schedule property, i.e. Flat No. G-2, 
Ground Floor, Durga Nivas,  having built-up area on 1200 Sft on Plot 

2
      
Appeal No. 11 of  2023 -DRAT-Kolkata
No. B-7/Part in Sy No. 64, 66,67/A, 68, 69 and 70 admeasuring 300 
Sqyds situated at Manikonda Jagir Village Rajendra Nagar Mandal RR 
District.   
3.
Respondent No. 1 is the assignee of the Bank. Respondents 
No. 2 and 3 were not executing the sale deed in favour of the 
Appellant.  Accordingly, a civil suit, being Civil Suit No. 32 of 2021, 
was filed by the Appellant against the Respondents 2 and 3 in the 
Court of Junior Civil Judge, Rajender Nagar for ‘Specific Performance of
the Contract’, which was decreed on 22nd September, 2021. 
4.
Respondent No. 1 affixed the Possession Notice dated on 
21st July, 2022 on the schedule property whereby he came to know 
about the equitable mortgage created by Respondents No. 2 and 3 in 
favour of Respondent No. 1 by depositing title deeds of the disputed 
property. 
Appellant 
preferred 
S.A. 
240 
of 
2022 
wherein 
I.A. 1783 of 2022 was filed seeking stay of the proceedings and 
setting aside the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act) which was dismissed by the 
Learned DRT.
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused 
the record. 
5.
Appellant is putting her claim on the basis of an agreement of 
sale wherein Item No. 5 of the Possession Notice was allegedly agreed 
to be purchased by the Appellant from Respondents No. 1 and 2. 
Original Suit    No. 32 of 2021 for specific performance of contract was 
decreed 
ex 
parte 
against 
Respondents 
No.1 
and 
2 
on 
22nd September, 2021. Demand Notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act 
was issued upon Respondents No. 1 and 2 on  1st April, 2022 while the 
Possession Notice was issued on 21st July, 2022. Equitable mortgage
was created on 14th August, 2012 by the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in 
favour of Respondent No. 1.
6.
Learned Counsel for Appellant argued that an agreement to sale 
exists in favour of the Appellant. Civil suit was filed for ‘Specific 

3
      
Appeal No. 11 of  2023 -DRAT-Kolkata
Performance of the Contract’ which was decreed.  

…