The proposed defendant, a financial institution, is not a necessary or proper party to the partition suit as their interest arises independently under the SARFAESI Act, which governs separate enforceable rights.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

I.A. 17375/2021 (U/O I Rule 10 of CPC, 1908 for impleadment of proposed defendant No. 5-Religare Finvest Limited)

1. The present application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking impleadment Religare Finvest Limited as defendant No. 5 in the array of parties.

2. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff has filed the Suit for Partition and Possession of 50% of the residential property comprising House No. B-47, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048 admeasuring 896 sq. mts. (hereinafter referred to as "suit property") belonging to Late Sardarni Mohinder Kaur besides other relief for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from creating any third-party rights in the suit property; for Mesne Profit commensurate with her share in the suit property and also for Rendition of Accounts.

3. It is submitted that on 07th June, 2021, this Court directed the defendants to maintain the status quo in respect of the suit property and they were given 30 days for filing the Written Statement, but the defendants failed to do so. Finally, the defendants have filed their Written Statement belatedly along with the application for condonation of delay on 03rd December, 2021.

4. It is stated that the defendants had deliberately not filed the Written Statement earlier as they had unauthorizedly mortgaged the entire suit property, which is now at the stage of auction by the proposed defendant No. 5. It is asserted that the suit property could not have been mortgaged as plaintiff's mother was the owner of 50% of the suit property and she never signed any mortgage papers.

5. Furthermore, the Written Statement has been filed only by defendant Nos. 1 and 3 and defendant Nos. 2 and 4 have chosen not to file the Written Statement which itself establishes that the veracity of the documents filed on record by the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 is not acknowledged by the defendant Nos. 2 and 4.

6. It is asserted that the plaintiff has now come to know that proposed defendant No. 5 has filed a petition under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act") which was listed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket District Court, South-East Delhi on 06th December, 2021. It is asserted that the suit property has been secured against the defendants by this Court by granting status quo on 07th June, 2021. The suit property also needs to be secured vis-`a-vis proposed defendant No. 5 and hence, proposed defendant No. 5 may be impleaded as a party.

7. The application is contested by the proposed defendant No. 5 which has explained that the borrowers, namely, the SPG Properties Pvt. Ltd., L B Electronics Limited, Oberoi Cars Pvt. Ltd., Inderjeet Singh Oberoi (defendant No. 3) and Kawaljit Kaur Oberoi, Sardar Raja Singh Oberoi (Gurantor/defendant No.1) approached the proposed defendant and sought financial assistance in the form of loan against property. On completion of the requisite formalities and compliances, the defendant has sanctioned Rs.9,45,98,691/- to the borrowers as against the suit property vide Sanction Letter dated 10th January, 2012. In order secure the financial assistance, the security interest was created by deposit of the original Title Deeds by the borrowers in favour of the proposed defendant No. 5.

8. Pursuant to the req