SATYAWAN Vs. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing.

(2.) Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 28th August 2020 in W.P.(C) No.7933/2014. Appellant also seeks dismissal of the said writ petition on the ground that the same is infructuous.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order erroneously proceeds by treating the pendency of a restoration application as a stay of execution of the Recovery Certificate dated 16th September 2014. She submits that the learned Single Judge has wrongly held that the Recovery Certificate cannot be executed even though the writ petition quashing the same had been dismissed. She states that the order embarks on a roving and fishing enquiry by seeking affidavits from the Appellant, the SDM and State Bank of India in absence of any writ petition or stay order, which is against the procedure established by law.