$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010423362026 + W.P.(C) 13066/2026, CM APPL. 60793/2026, CM APPL. 65489/2026 & CM APPL. 65493/2026 ANIL KUMAR PAREEK & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Madhav K. Sareen, Mr. Dhruv Mehta & Mr. Raunak Wahi, Advocates. versus BANK OF BARODA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, Standing Counsel with Mr. Praveen Upadhyay, Advocate for Respondent No.1 (through VC). Mohit Kumar Bafna, Adv. 23- 09-2026 12:46 • Mr. Abhishek Baid, Mr. Mohit Kumar Bafna, Mr. Praneet Das & Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Advocates for Respondent No. 2/RBI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail an order dated 29.01.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (“DRAT”), Delhi in Misc. Appeal (EDRAT No. 2294/2025) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 11:55:24 arising out of TA No. 298/2022 (DRT-II, Delhi) whereby the DRAT rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (“DRT”), Delhi rejecting an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) filed by the petitioner herein. 2. The facts of the case, as borne out from the record, reveal that the petitioner had executed an Agreement to Sell dated 08.08.2021 (“Agreement to Sell”) in respect of a property described as ‘Unit No. 101, Tower 6, Castille Apartments, Jaypee Greens, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh’. 3. The facts and material on record disclose that the Agreement to Sell was entered into between the petitioner and the erstwhile owner of the property namely, respondent no. 3, Ms. Anita Kashyap Monnee. The petitioner was aware of the fact that the property was mortgaged with respondent no. 1, Bank of Baroda. The material on record also further indicates that although the outstanding loan amount was much higher, the bank vide communication dated 21.08.2021 had informed to respondent no. 3, i.e., the owner, that upon payment of an amount of ₹51,09,993/-, the property documents shall be released to the erstwhile owner and that the bank had no objection if the petitioner deposited the said amount. The material on record further indicates that proceedings under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 were initiated by the bank against respondent no. 3 by filing an appropriate petition for recovery of ₹20,00,000,00/-. 4. On the strength of the Agreement to Sell and on the basis of the communication exchanged between the bank and the erstwhile owner, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 11:55:24 the petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking to be impleaded in the array of parties as a respondent before the learned DRT. 5. The learned DRT, vide its order dated 06.11.2025, rejected the application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, holding by stating that the Agreement to Sell did not confer any right upon the petitioner to seek impleadment in the proceedings. It was further held by the learned DRT that the petitioner had neither not availed of the loan nor was he a party to the loan transaction and therefore, not a necessary party to the proceedings before the learned DRT which only concerned recovery of the amount due to the bank from the borrower. 6. The said order was affirmed by the DRAT by way of the Impugned Order. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contends that the bank has repeatedly taken the stand that it would close the loan account upon acceptance of ₹51,09,993/- and that the bank cannot be permitted to resile from the said position. He further submits that apart from the correspondence exchanged between the parties, a statement made by the bank officials before the Police authorities has been placed before the learned DRT. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner ought to be heard by the learned DRT as his rights are involved in the matter and, therefore, the petitioner is a necessary and appropriate party to the proceedings before the learned DRT. 8. This Court is not persuaded to accept the submissions of the petitioner. It is trite law that Agreement to Sell does not, by itself, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 11:55:24 create any right or interest in the property. It is not the case that the petitioner entered into a sale deed so as to step into the shoes of respondent no. 3 and defend the proceedings in respect of the property, of which he claims to be the subsequent owner. The loan agreement is between respondent no. 3 and the bank, the petitioner has neither availed the loan nor had the loan assigned to him. Therefore, merely on the basis of the Agreement to sell the petitioner cannot be a necessary or proper party to the proceedings before the DRT. 9. It is made clear that these observations are confined to the issue before this Court, namely, whether the petitioner is required to be impleaded as a necessary or proper party before the learned DRT. These observations shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the transaction between the petitioner and respondent no. 3 or on the transaction between respondent no. 3 and the bank. It is also open for respondent No. 3 to take all the contentions put forward by the petitioner in the proceedings before the learned DRT. 10. It is always open for the petitioner to take such steps as may be permissible in law for enforcing his rights under the Agreement to Sell. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/ ‘A’/MY This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 11:55:24