PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The respondent No.1/bank had advanced a credit to M/s.Atwal and Associates, a partnership firm of which Zorawar Singh Atwal and Premjit Singh Atwal were partners. The two have stood guarantees to pay the outstanding sum to the bank should the firm default.

2. Premjit Singh Atwal is the husband of the petitioner.

3. The credit became sticky. The bank initiated recovery proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The same was registered as OA No.81/2005. The bank sought attachment of the hypothecated vehicles by the partnership firms and also two immovable properties, one of which was owned by the husband of the petitioner. The same is a villa bearing No.E.G.3/14, Garden Estate, Gurgaon – 122002.

4. On October 31, 2005, the respondents in the claim petition filed by the bank were restrained from selling, transferring or alienating the hypothecated machinery and also the two immovable properties stated in the application, one of which is the villa at Garden Estate.

5. Proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal lingered on. The writ petitioner filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking intervention and a vacation of the restrained order dated October 31, 2005. She claimed to have purchased the property from her husband under an agreement to sell dated September 01, 2001. She claimed that on the same date a General Power of Attorney was executed in her favour followed by a registered power of attorney dated August 20, 2002. She claimed that the entire sale consideration in sum of Rs.15 lacs had been paid by her to her husband on September 01, 2001. She further claimed that the Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana delayed execution of the conveyance deed in her favour on one pretext or the other and ultimately executed the conveyance deed on May 16, 2011.

6. Registered as IA No.698/2009, after notice was issued, vide order dated December 16, 2009 the application was dismissed in default. An observation was made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal that considering the documents filed by the appellant were not registered the same were ex-facie evidence of a sham transaction.

7. Appeal filed against the order dated December 16, 2009, registered as Appeal No.131/2010, was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal vide order dated March 25, 2010, noting that husband of the petitioner had given a personal guarantee to secure the amounts advanced by the bank to the partnership firm. The Appellate Tribunal also commented upon the documents filed by the writ petitioner.

8. W.P.(C) No.6484/2010 filed against the order dated March 25, 2010 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal was disposed of on September 24, 2010, by a Division Bench of this Court noting that counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was not correctly advised to move IA No.698/2009 because she was not a party to the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The property in question was not a mortgaged property. Counsel for the petitioner stated before the Division Bench that if a recovery certificate was issued, the petitioner would have had a right to file objections in accordance with law. Counsel submitted that there were observations made in the impugned order which could not have been made. Counsel argued that the Debts Recovery Tribunal as also the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal overlooked that one General Power of Attorney concerning the property was a registered document. It was noted that counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw IA No.698/2009.

9. Noting the submissions the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:-

“We permit the petitioner to withdraw IA No.698/2009 filed in OA No.81/2005 and thus the observations made in the impugned orders of the DRT dated 16.12.2009 and of the DRAT dated 25.03.2010 would not, prejudice the petitioner in any fresh proceedings.”

10. The claim petition filed