Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner Urban Improvement Trust, Bhiwadi, challenging order dated 18.11.2014 passed by Recovery Officer -I, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, as also his earlier order dated 20.05.2010. Contention of learned Senior Counsel is that the Recovery Officer, vide order dated 20.05.2010 directed petitioner Urban Improvement Trust, Bhiwadi, to transfer documents of auctioned property in favour of auction purchaser Sunder Singh and by subsequent order dated 18.11.2014, the Recovery Officer has rejected the objection of the petitioner and called upon it to make compliance of his earlier order within seven days by transferring the documents in favour of the auction purchaser.
(2.) SHRI Ravi Kiran Mathur, learned Senior Counsel, has argued that petitioner Urban Improvement Trust was not a party in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and that it requested the Branch Manager of the Union Bank of India, SDMH, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur, to let it know as to on what basis the loan was sanctioned to judgment -debtor and whether the disputed plot was mortgaged with them. The aforesaid Bank through its Advocate vide communication dated 05.12.2013 has sent reply to the petitioner that the said property was neither mortgaged with it nor the title deed of the same was ever deposited by Smt. Rashmi Bhargava or any other person with it and as such the loan was not sanctioned on the basis of title deed or the aforesaid property. There was thus no need for seeking permission of the Urban Improvement Trust. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there are genuine disputes between the parties because in between Smt. Abha Agarwal had, by registered sale -deed dated 13/15.12.2006 sold the property in dispute by registered sale -deed to one Smt. Bharti Gupta and the documents have been transferred in the name of Bharti Gupta by petitioner Urban Improvement Trust on 29.03.2008. A Suit for injunction has also been filed by Smt. Bharti Gupta impleading the petitioner as well as Sunder Singh as defendants.
(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel submitted that the Recovery Officer has not dealt with any of the arguments raised before him while deciding their objections by impugned order dated 18.11.2014 and has threatened with initiation of contempt proceedings against them, whereas he has no power of initiating contempt proceedings.;