White Paper Design Private Limited Through Mr Abhishek Bansal Director vs Mr Romi Garg & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Judgment Reserved on: 28 April, 2026
th
Judgment pronounced on: 6 July, 2026
I.A. 14861/2025, I.A. 23924/2025
IN
+ CS(OS) 394/2025 with I.A. 32920/2025, I.A. 1027/2026 & I.A.
6983/2026
WHITE PAPER DESIGN PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH MR ABHISHEK BANSAL DIRECTOR.....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Shaurya Shya, Ms. Suditi Batra, Mr.
Ankit Handa and Mr. Darpan
Sachdeva, Advocates
versus
MR ROMI GARG & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw and
Ms. Shambhavi Kala, Advocates for
D-1 with D-1 in person.
Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Dr. Ajay
Chaudhary, Mr. Bharat Chaudhary,
Ms. Vinita and Ms. Monika,
Advocates for D-2 & D-3.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sanjay Abbot, Mr. Dhananjay
Grover, Mr. Vasundhara Bakru, Mr.
Harsh Vardhan and Ms. Vidushi,
Advocates for D-4 & D-5.
I.A. 22275/2025, I.A. 23024/2025 and I.A. 433/2026
IN
+ CS(OS) 626/2025 with I.A. 25819/2025, I.A. 32911/2025, I.A.
2674/2026, I.A. 3091/2026 & I.A. 4515/2026
MR ROMI GARG .....Plaintiff
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 1 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw and Ms.
Shambhavi Kala, Advocates with
plaintiff in-person
versus
MRS. SHEELA DEVI & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Dr. Ajay
Chaudhary, Mr. Bharat Chaudhary,
Ms. Vinita and Ms. Monika,
Advocates for D-1& D-3.
Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Shaurya Shya, Ms. Suditi Batra, Mr.
Ankit Handa and Mr. Darpan
Sachdeva, Advocates for D-2.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sanjay Abbot, Mr. Dhananjay
Grover, Mr. Vasundhara Bakru, Mr.
Harsh Vardhan and Ms. Vidushi,
Advocates for D-4 & D-5.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
JUDGMENT
AMIT BANSAL, J.
I.A. 22275/2025 & I.A. 23024/2025 ( Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC )
and I.A. 433/2026 ( Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC ) in CS(OS) 626/2025
I.A. 14861/2025 & I.A. 23924/2025 ( Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC ) in
CS(OS) 394/2025
1. Since all the aforesaid applications are based on similar facts arising
between the same parties and seeking similar reliefs, all the aforesaid
applications are being decided by way of this common judgment.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 2 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
2. For ease of reference, Sh. Romi Garg, the plaintiff in CS(OS) 626/2025
and defendant no.1 in CS(OS) 394/2025 shall hereinafter be referred to as
‘Romi Garg’. White Paper Designs Private Limited, the plaintiff in CS(OS)
394/2025 and defendant no.2 in CS(OS) 626/2025 shall hereinafter be
referred to as ‘White Paper Designs’. Romi Garg and White Paper Designs
shall collectively be referred to as ‘plaintiffs’. Smt. Sheela Devi, defendant
no.1 in CS(OS) 626/2025 and defendant no.2 in CS(OS) 394/2025 shall
hereinafter be referred to as ‘Sheela Devi’. Sh. Anup Garg, defendant no.3 in
CS(OS) 626/2025 and CS(OS) 394/2025 shall hereinafter be referred to as
‘Anup Garg’. Sheela Devi and Anup Garg shall collectively be referred to as
‘defendants’. KIOSK Properties Private Limited, defendant no.4 in CS(OS)
626/2025 shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘KIOSK Properties’. Bhilai
Engineering Industries Limited, defendant no.4 in CS(OS) 394/2025 and
defendant no.5 in CS(OS) 626/2025 shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘Bhilai
Engineering’. KIOSK Properties and Bhilai Engineering shall collectively be
referred to as ‘subsequent purchasers’ or ‘defendants no.4 and 5’.
3. CS(OS) 626/2025 has been filed seeking specific performance of the
th
Agreement to Sell (‘ATS’) dated 15 May, 2023 executed by Sheela Devi in
favour of Romi Garg. In terms of the Agreement to Sell, Sheela Devi has
agreed to sell the properties being (i) basement, ground floor and first floor of
A-1, Greater Kailash Enclave-II, New Delhi (‘GK-II property’) and (ii) N-
118, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi (‘GK-I property’) to Romi Garg for a
consideration of Rs.24,50,00,000/-. The two properties shall collectively be
referred to as the ‘suit properties’. Along with the suit, Romi Garg has filed
I.A. 2275/2025, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), seeking interim injunction against Sheela Devi or
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 3 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
any other person from creating third party rights or parting with possession of
the suit properties.
4. CS(OS) 394/2025 has been filed by White Paper Designs seeking
nd
specific performance of the ATS dated 22 July, 2024 executed by Romi Garg
in favour of White Paper Designs. In terms of the said ATS, Romi Garg has
agreed to sell the first floor of the GK-II property to White Paper Designs for
a consideration of Rs. 6,25,00,000/-.
5. Briefly stated, the case set up by the plaintiffs in the two suits is as
follows:-
5.1 Sheela Devi is the mother of Romi Garg and Anup Garg. Anup Garg is
the younger brother of Romi Garg.
5.2 Sheela Devi purchased the GK-II property vide registered sale deed
th
dated 4 May, 2023 for a consideration of Rs.20,25,00,000/-. The aforesaid
sum was paid by Sheela Devi after receiving a sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/- from
Romi Garg, Rs.10,47,00,000/- from her youngest son, namely, Kapil Garg
(out of which Rs.5,06,00,000/- was paid by Kapil Garg on behalf of Romi
Garg) and other persons.
th
5.3 Sheela Devi purchased the GK-I property vide Sale deed dated 8 May,
2023, for a sale consideration of Rs.11,40,00,000/-. The aforesaid sums were
paid by Sheela Devi after receiving a sum of Rs.82,00,000/- from Anup Garg,
Rs.85,00,000/- from Kapil Garg (on behalf of Romi Garg), Rs.3,30,00,000
from Manisha Garg (wife of Kapil Garg) and a loan of Rs.7,00,00,000/- was
taken by Sheela Devi with Kapil Garg as a co-borrower.
th
5.4 On 15 May, 2023, Sheela Devi entered into an Agreement to Sell by
which, Sheela Devi agreed to sell the both the suit properties to Romi Garg
for a total consideration of Rs.24,50,00,000/-, out of which Rs.12,30,00,000/-
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 4 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
was for GK-I property and Rs.12,20,00,000/- was for the basement, ground
floor and first floor of the GK-II property.
5.5 Out of the aforesaid total consideration of Rs.24,50,00,000/-, a sum of
Rs.13,41,00,000/- already stood paid by Romi Garg to Sheela Devi as detailed
in paragraph 14 of the plaint, and this has also been recorded in the ATS dated
th
15 May, 2023. The balance consideration of Rs.11,09,00,000/- was to be paid
th
in two tranches - Rs.9,50,00,000/- to be paid on or before 15 December, 2023
st
and Rs.1,59,00,000/- to be paid on or before 31 July, 2025. Out of the
aforesaid amount due, Romi Garg has already paid a sum of Rs.9,75,00,000/-
th th
by cheques dated 6 June 2023 and 11 December, 2023 in favour of Sheela
Devi. Accordingly, Romi Garg has paid a total sum of Rs.23,16,00,000/- out
of a total consideration of Rs.24,50,00,000/-, leaving a remaining balance
amount of Rs.1,34,00,000/-.
5.6 It is stated that Romi Garg has been ready and willing to perform its
th
obligation under the ATS dated 15 May, 2023 and has had the necessary
assets/holdings for the said purpose.
5.7 Sheela Devi has handed over original title deeds of GK-II property to
Romi Garg and the same are in his possession. The title deeds of GK-I
property are deposited with ICICI Bank as a mortgage for loan provided by
the bank to Sheela Devi and Kapil Garg.
th
5.8 As per Clause 5 of the ATS dated 15 May, 2023 Romi Garg had the
right to demolish the existing structure in the GK-II property as well as the
GK-I property and get the said properties constructed at his own cost through
a builder of his own choice. Romi Garg assigned the work of construction to
one ‘Ecogreen Ultrahomes LLP’ (‘Ecogreen’) for both the suit properties.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 5 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
Accordingly, from July, 2023, Ecogreen undertook construction at the suit
properties.
th
5.9 In terms of Clause 18 of the ATS dated 15 May, 2023, Romi Garg had
a right to nominate any person in his place for execution of the sale deed qua
the suit properties. In terms of the said clause, Romi Garg executed an ATS
nd
dated 22 July, 2024 in favour of White Paper Designs in respect of 22.5%
undivided ownership rights in the GK-II property together with rights of
construction of the entire first floor along with a proportionate right in the
common areas for a total consideration of Rs.6,25,00,000/-, out of which
Romi Garg has received a sum of Rs.3,37,00,000/-. It is submitted on behalf
of White Paper Designs that it has been ready and willing to deposit the
balance consideration of Rs.2.82 crores and a Demand Draft for the said
amount has already been prepared.
nd
5.10 In terms of the ATS dated 22 July, 2024, Romi Garg was to complete
st
the construction of the first floor of the GK-II property on or before 31 May,
th
2025 and hand over possession to White Paper Designs on or before 30 June,
2025.
5.11 Sheela Devi had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Anup Garg
for managing family businesses/properties in the name of Sheela Devi. It is
stated that sometime in January/February, 2024, Anup Garg started asserting
rights over the properties owned by Romi Garg. Anup Garg exercised undue
influence over his mother Sheela Devi, so as to create prejudice against Romi
Garg. Since September, 2024, Anup Garg stopped the contractors and
labourers engaged by Ecogreen from undertaking construction activities at the
suit properties.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 6 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
th
5.12 On 17 February, 2025, Anup Garg along with his accomplices entered
the office of Romi Garg at Nehru Place, New Delhi, broke open the locks and
took away various documents and computers belonging to Romi Garg. One
th
of the documents which Anup Garg took away was the ATS dated 15 May,
th
2023. In this regard, FIR No.150/2025 has been registered on 17 February,
2025 with Police Station, Kalkaji against Anup Garg and other persons.
5.13 Since Romi Garg failed to perform his obligation under the ATS dated
nd
22 July, 2024, White Paper Designs was constrained to file CS(OS)
394/2025.
5.14 Since Sheela Devi failed to perform her obligations under the ATS
th
dated 15 May, 2023, Romi Garg was constrained to file CS(OS) 626/2025.
P ROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS C OURT IN BOTH THE SUITS
rd
6. In CS(OS) 394/2025, on 23 June, 2025, counsel for Romi Garg
appeared and accepted summons in the suit and notice in I.A.14861/2025
(Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC) and stated that Romi Garg is willing to
nd
perform the ATS dated 22 July, 2024. Hence, notice was issued to Sheela
Devi and Anup Garg. The Court also noted the statement made by the counsel
for Romi Garg that no third-party interest shall be created in the suit properties
nd
contrary to the ATS dated 22 July, 2024.
th
7. On 4 July, 2025, the Court referred the parties for mediation to Delhi
High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The Court also took note of
the submission of White Paper Designs that it is ready and willing to deposit
the balance consideration of Rs.2.82 crores and a Demand Draft for the said
amount has already been prepared. The mediation proceedings between the
parties were not successful and settlement could not be arrived at.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 7 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
8. I.A. 23924/2025 (Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC) has been
filed on behalf of White Paper Design seeking a direction that status quo be
maintained with respect to first floor of the GK-II property.
th
9. CS(OS) 626/2025 came up before this Court for the first time on 10
September, 2025, when the Court was pleased to issue summons which were
accepted in Court by counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants, i.e.
Sheela Devi and Anup Garg. Notice was also issued in I.A. 22275/2025 filed
by Romi Garg seeking interim injunction.
10. Another application for interim injunction, I.A. 23024/2025 was filed
th
on behalf of Romi Garg, which came up for hearing before this Court on 16
September, 2025 when it came to the notice of the Court that the basement,
ground floor and first floor of the GK-II property had been sold by Sheela
st
Devi on 1 September, 2025. The Court noted that this fact was not disclosed
to the Court by the counsel appearing on behalf of Sheela Devi when the suit
th
was listed before the Court on 10 September, 2025. Counsel for the
defendants stated that their clients had not informed him about the same.
11. Counsel also appeared on behalf of the subsequent purchasers, namely
KIOSK Properties and Bhilai Engineering. Counsel for KIOSK properties
submitted that they had purchased the basement and ground floor of the GK-
II property for a consideration of Rs.12,00,00,000/-. Counsel for Bhilai
Engineering submitted that they had purchased the first floor of the GK-II
property for a total consideration of Rs.8,50,00,000/-. In light of the aforesaid,
KIOSK Properties was impleaded as defendant no.4 and Bhilai Engineering
was impleaded as defendant no.5 in CS(OS) 626/2025. Following ad interim
th
directions were passed by the Court on 16 September, 2025:
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 8 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
“ 19. In the meanwhile, following ad interim directions are passed:-
i. Status quo with regard to title and possession of the basement,
ground floor and first floor of the GK-II property shall be
maintained till the next date of hearing.
ii. Defendant No.1 is directed to deposit the sale consideration
received by defendant No.1 in respect of the sale of the basement,
ground floor and first floor of the GK-II property, amounting to Rs.
12 crores and Rs.8.5 crores as disclosed by the counsel for the
Buyers within two (2) weeks from today.
iii. the defendants are also restrained from creating any third-party
rights, in respect of the GK-I property till the next date of hearing .”
12. The defendants filed FAO(OS) 114/2025 against the interim order
th
passed by this Court on 16 September, 2025 in CS(OS) 626/2025. The
th
Division Bench, vide order dated 6 October, 2025, directed that the directions
th
contained in paragraph 19(ii) in the order dated 16 September, 2025,
requiring Sheela Devi to deposit the sale consideration in Court shall remain
deleted/inoperative till the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of
the CPC for interim injunction is decided by the Court.
th
13. On 16 October, 2025, this Court clarified that the status quo order
th
dated 16 September, 2026 did not restrain the Sub Registrar from releasing
the registered sale deeds in favour of the subsequent purchasers.
14. I.A. 433/2026 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 4 of the CPC) has been
filed by Sheela Devi seeking vacation of the status quo order passed by this
th
Court on 16 September, 2025.
15. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the subsequent purchasers
along with an application for condonation of delay being I.A. 4515/2026.
Since the aforesaid application is yet to be allowed, the written statement is
yet to be formally taken on record.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 9 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
16. I.A. 23923/2025 was filed by White Paper Designs in CS(OS)
394/2025 seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner for inspection
regarding the possession of the first floor of the GK-II property. At the hearing
rd
on 23 September, 2025, this Court appointed a Local Commissioner to
inspect the first floor of the GK-II property to determine the current status of
the said property, including the possession.
17. Counsel entered appearance on behalf of Bhilai Engineering and made
an oral request for impleadment in CS(OS) 394/2025. Accordingly, this Court
rd
in the order passed on 23 September, 2025 impleaded Bhilai Engineering as
defendant no.4.
18. Thereafter, submission on behalf of counsel on the interim applications
th th th
were heard on 10 November, 2025, 28 November, 2025, 17 December,
th th th th
2025, 9 January, 2026, 13 February, 2026, 25 March, 2026 and 28 April,
th
2026. On 28 April, 2026 judgment was reserved in all the captioned
applications.
ASE SET UP BY THE DEFENDANTS IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
C
19. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, i.e.
Sheela Devi and Anup Garg, it has been averred as under:
th
19.1 The ATS dated 15 May, 2023 is a forged and fabricated document. The
signatures of Sheela Devi on the said documents are forged. Sheela Devi has
st
filed a complaint on 21 July, 2025 to the DCP (Economic Offences Wing)
alleging forgery.
19.2 CS(OS) 394/2025 was a collusive suit filed by White Paper Designs,
which is controlled by Romi Garg. Since no interim injunction order was
passed in the said suit, Romi Garg filed CS(OS) 626/2025. White Paper
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 10 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
Designs is an entity controlled by Romi Garg and his brother Kapil Garg. It is
a front used to create false third-party interest and execute sham transactions.
19.3 No payment has been made by Romi Garg to Sheela Devi for the ATS
th
dated 15 May, 2023. The credit entries made from the accounts of Romi Garg
and his brother Kapil Garg were in respect of amounts that were siphoned off
from the bank account of Sheela Devi to their accounts.
19.4 Out of the alleged payment of Rs.23,16,00,000/- made by Romi Garg
th
under the ATS dated 15 May, 2023, five payments were made prior to
th
execution of ATS on 15 May, 2023 and only two payments of
Rs.1,75,00,000/- and Rs.8,00,00,000/- were made after the signing of the
ATS.
th
19.5 The alleged ATS dated 15 May, 2023 is in respect of two distinct
properties situated in different localities and therefore, creates a doubt over
the same.
19.6 CS(OS) 626/2025 for specific performance is not maintainable as Romi
Garg has never tendered the remaining balance amount of Rs.1,34,00,000/- to
st
Sheela Devi as per the due date, i.e. 31 July, 2025.
th
19.7 Romi Garg has failed to produce the original ATS dated 15 May, 2023.
The explanation given by Romi Garg that the said ATS has been stolen by
Anup Garg is completely concocted.
19.8 Neither Romi Garg, nor White Paper Designs have produced the
nd
original ATS of 22 July, 2024.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 11 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
S UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF R OMI G ARG
20. Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, counsel appearing on behalf of Romi Garg made
the following submissions:
20.1 Sheela Devi purchased both the suit properties from the funds
transferred on behalf of Romi Garg. The bank statements of Sheela Devi
would show that she did not have the money in her account to purchase the
suit properties.
20.2 Sheela Devi has not disputed the fact that Romi Garg has paid a sum of
Rs.23,16,00,000/- by himself or through his brother Kapil Garg out of the total
consideration of Rs.24,50,00,000/-.
20.3 Romi Garg undertook construction of the suit properties through his
firm Ecogreen. A sum of Rs.7,85,00,000/- has been spent towards
construction of the suit properties and Romi Garg has filed bills and invoices
in this regard. Accordingly, Romi Garg claims ownership of the constructed
portion of the suit properties.
20.4 The contention of the defendants that payments received by Sheela
Devi were siphoned off are bald and vague allegations. Sheela Devi has not
given any details of the total sums received by her from Romi Garg and/or
Kapil Garg and for what purpose. Further, she has not even given particulars
of the amounts that have been returned back and the reasons thereof.
th
20.5 The contention of the defendants that the ATS dated 15 May, 2023 is
forged, is completely misconceived. Late husband of Sheela Devi and father
of Romi Garg and Anup Garg, Sh. Telu Ram, has signed as a witness on the
th
said ATS. He has also filed an affidavit dated 13 October, 2025 before this
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 12 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
th
Court, identifying the signature of Sheela Devi on the ATS dated 15 May,
2023 and the fact that the signatures were made in his presence.
20.6 Romi Garg, in its replication has pleaded that the total sums paid by
Romi Garg, Kapil Garg, Manisha Garg and Ecogreen to Sheela Devi were to
the tune of Rs.51,69,89,787/-, whereas Sheela Devi has paid a sum of
Rs.29,26,28,700/-, thus leaving an excess amount of Rs.22,43,61,087/- with
Sheela Devi. Romi Garg has also explained in his replication that the sums
stated to have been returned by Sheela Devi do not pertain to the transactions
th
relating to the ATS dated 15 May, 2023.
20.7 Merely because the stamp paper was purchased four months prior to
th
the execution of ATS dated 15 May, 2023 does not make the same forged or
th
fabricated. The stamp paper was purchased on 7 January, 2023, after the first
th
payment towards the purchase of GK-II property was made on 6 January,
2023. There is no merit in the submission of the defendants that the stamp
paper was forged.
20.8 There is no collusion between Romi Garg and White Paper Designs.
Romi Garg, Sheela Devi, Sh. Telu Ram and other family members were all
Directors in White Paper Designs, after which it was sold to the current
management.
20.9 Romi Garg has paid a sum of Rs.23,16,00,000/- to Sheela Devi towards
consideration of the suit properties. Sheela Devi has allegedly received
Rs.20,50,00,000/- from the sale of basement, ground floor and first floor of
GK-II property from the subsequent purchasers. There cannot be any
justification for Sheela Devi to receive monies both from Romi Garg and the
subsequent purchasers in respect of the same property. Accordingly, balance
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 13 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
of convenience is in favour of Sheela Devi being directed to deposit the
amounts as received by her from the subsequent purchasers in Court.
20.10 The defendants are dishonest litigants inasmuch as they executed sale
st
deeds dated 1 September, 2025 in favour of defendants no.4 and 5 for
basement, ground floor and first floor of the GK-II property while not
th
disclosing the same to the Court at the hearing of the CS(OS) 394/2025 on 4
th
September, 2025 and CS(OS) 626/2025 on 10 September, 2025. The sale
th th
deeds were registered on 11 September, 2025 and 12 September, 2025, after
CS(OS) 626/2025 had been filed.
nd
20.11 The ATS dated 2 April, 2024 in respect of first floor of GK-II property
th
and the ATS dated 11 June, 2025 in respect of basement and ground floor of
the GK-II property allegedly executed by Sheela Devi were disclosed for the
rd
first time to the Court on 3 February, 2026 while this Court was hearing
arguments on the present applications. The said agreements were filed by
defendants no.4 and 5 along with their written statement. These agreements
were not disclosed by Sheela Devi and Anup Garg in their written statement
th
filed on 9 October, 2025. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said
agreements are back dated, forged and fabricated.
20.12 KIOSK Properties and Bhilai Engineering are not bonafide purchasers
th
for value without notice. Romi Garg and defendants were in mediation till 25
August, 2025 and the first payment was made by the subsequent purchasers
th
towards the purchase of GK-II property on 29 August, 2025 and the balance
st
payment was made on 1 September, 2025, the date when the sale deed got
executed. Accordingly, it is contended that the subsequent purchasers were
aware of CS(OS) 394/2025 and knew that the property is under litigation.
th
White Paper Designs had also issued a newspaper publication on 13 July,
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 14 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
2025, notifying the public at large of the pendency of the civil suit in respect
of first floor of the GK-II property.
th
20.13 Romi Garg had also issued a legal notice dated 24 April, 2025 to Anup
Garg and Ms. Sagarika Sawhney, who is a Director in KIOSK Properties and
Bhilai Engineering, stating that Sheela Devi is acting under the influence of
Anup Garg. Pursuant to the aforesaid legal notice, an FIR was registered
th
against Ms. Sagarika Sawhney and Anup Garg on 17 July, 2025.
20.14 Despite having received 94.5% of the sale consideration from Romi
Garg, Sheela Devi has proceeded to sell the GK-II property to the subsequent
purchasers. Romi Garg will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be
compensated in monetary terms, unless the defendants are restrained from
creating third party rights in respect of the suit properties.
S UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF W HITE P APER D ESIGNS
21. Mr. Amit Sibal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of White Paper
Designs, made the following submissions:
nd
21.1 The original ATS dated 22 July, 2024 is with White Paper Designs
and it has always been ready and willing to perform its obligations under said
th
ATS. This fact has also been noted by this Court in the order passed on 4
July, 2025.
nd
21.2 The ATS dated 2 April, 2024, in favour of Bhilai Engineering contains
material inconsistencies which raises doubt over its execution. The fact that
the said ATS is not a genuine document can be seen from the fact that no
payments as mentioned in the said ATS have actually been made.
st
21.3 The sale deeds executed on 1 September, 2025 in favour of defendants
no.4 and 5 were subsequent to the ATS executed in favour of White Paper
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 15 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
Designs. Therefore, in terms of Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 the rights created in favour of defendants no.4 and 5 would be subject
to the ATS in favour of White Paper Designs.
st
21.4 The sale deed executed on 1 September, 2025 in favour of Bhilai
Engineering was executed merely three days after the mediation between
Romi Garg and the defendants failed. Clearly, Bhilai Engineering was aware
of the legal proceedings and hence is not a bona fide purchaser.
21.5 There is no collusion between the plaintiffs. Earlier, Romi Garg and his
wife were Directors in White Paper Designs as was Sheela Devi and her
husband. White Paper Designs was sold in 2022 to third parties not related to
the family. The e-mail address of White Paper Designs as given in the records
of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) is the earlier e-mail address when the
family owned this company.
UBMISSION ON BEHALF OF HEELA EVI AND NUP ARG DEFENDANTS
S S D A G ( )
22. Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants,
made the following submissions:
22.1 The plaintiffs are acting in collusion and it is evident from the fact that
the e-mail address of White Paper Designs is the same as that of Romi Garg
in his bank account statement. Romi Garg and his wife were the previous
Directors of White Paper Designs and the office premises of White Paper
Designs is owned by Romi Garg.
th
22.2 The ATS dated 15 May, 2023 is a forged document and the signatures
of Sheela Devi on the said document are forged. Sheela Devi did not purchase
the E-Stamp Certificate used in the said ATS; the stamp paper was purchased
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 16 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
th
on 7 January, 2023, four months before the purchase of the property; there
are other misleading entries on the stamp paper.
th
22.3 The ATS dated 15 May, 2023 is not a genuine document. There is a
long unexplained and unusual period of two years and two months for making
payments. There is no explanation as to why the GK-II property was
th
purchased in the name of Sheela Devi on 4 May, 2023 and 10 days later, the
ATS was executed by Sheela Devi in favour of Romi Garg. The ATS records
that Romi Garg was to construct the basement, ground floor and first floor of
the GK-II property. This arrangement is unusual as in the normal course, it is
only one party which constructs the entire building.
22.4 Romi Garg has failed to deduct amounts towards 1% TDS as stipulated
under the Income TaxAct, 1961. Even though Romi Garg claims to have made
payments through other entities, such as Kapil Garg and his wife, there is
nothing on record to show that the aforesaid payments were made towards the
said ATS.
th
22.5 Romi Garg has failed to produce the original of the ATS dated 15 May,
2023. Romi Garg has cooked up a false story about the original deed stolen
th
by defendant no.3 on 17 February, 2025. Romi Garg has also stated that the
ATS dated 22nd July, 2024 executed by Romi Garg in favour of White Paper
nd
Designs has been stolen. It defies logic as to why the ATS dated 22 July,
2024 was in possession of Romi Garg and not White Paper Designs. White
Paper Designs has claimed in CS(OS) 394/2025 that the original ATS dated
nd
22 July, 2024 is in its possession. Accordingly, Romi Garg is taking
contradictory stands.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 17 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
22.6 Romi Garg claims to have incurred an expenditure of Rs.7.85 crores
towards construction of the GK-II property, but has not placed on record any
proof of payment by him to Ecogreens. Ecogreens is a partnership of Romi
Garg and Anup Garg, in which 51% is owned by Romi Garg and 49% by Anup
Garg.
S UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF KIOSK P ROPERTIES AND B HILAI
E NGINEERING ( SUBSEQUENT PURCHASERS )
23. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
subsequent purchasers/defendants no.4 and 5, made the following
submissions:
23.1 The subsequent purchasers have been unnecessarily dragged into a
family dispute between Romi Garg, Sheela Devi and Anup Garg. The
subsequent purchasers have lawfully purchased and paid for the basement,
ground floor and first floor of the GK-II property. They had already purchased
the second floor and third floor of the said property in 2023 and had orally
agreed with Sheela Devi that they would purchase the remaining floors as
well.
23.2 Bhilai Engineering and/or its Directors were never aware of the
th
existence of the alleged ATS dated 15 May, 2023, nor were they ever put to
notice of the same.
23.3 The entire GK-II property was constructed and built as a single unit for
the residence of defendants no.4 and 5. Since the said property was being
constructed by plaintiff’s own construction firm Ecogreen, this fact was
always known to Romi Garg.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 18 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
th
23.4 The ATS dated 15 May, 2023 was a forged and fabricated document.
th
The date on which the stamp paper was purchased i.e. 7 January, 2023,
Sheela Devi was not even the owner of either of the two suit properties. The
th th
GK-II property was purchased on 4 May, 2023 and the GK-I property on 8
May, 2023, i.e. four months after the stamp paper was purchased. The name
of Sheela Devi on the stamp paper has wrongly been spelt as ‘Shila Devi’ it
should have been spelt as ‘Sheela Devi’. There are other discrepancies which
are evident on the stamp paper.
th
23.5 In the legal notice issued by Romi Garg on 24 April, 2025, Romi Garg
has admitted that Director of Bhilai Engineering, Ms. Sagarika Sawhney had
fraudulently purchased the entire GK-II property. The same admission was
also made by Romi Garg in the complaint filed by Romi Garg in June, 2025.
nd
23.6 The ATS dated 2 April, 2024 was entered into between Sheela Devi
and Bhilai Engineering in respect of the first floor of the GK-II property. An
initial consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- was paid to Sheela Devi by way of a
cheque. However, the said cheque was not encashed by Sheela Devi. The said
ATS was executed primarily for purposes of obtaining a loan from the bank.
On the strength of the said ATS, Bhilai Engineering also obtained a loan
sanction document from the bank. Similarly, the ATS in respect of ground
th
floor and basement of the GK-II property was executed on 11 June, 2025 in
favour of KIOSK Properties. The aforesaid ATS was also executed for the
purposes of obtaining a loan from the bank and is therefore, duly mentioned
rd
in the loan sanction letter dated 3 July, 2025.
23.7 The sale deeds in respect of the basement, ground floor and first floor
of the GK-II property were executed pursuant to due diligence conducted by
defendants no.4 and 5 as also by the bank from whom defendants no.4 and 5
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 19 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
had obtained sanction for a loan. Defendants no.4 and 5 are bonafide
purchasers, who entered into the transaction in the ordinary course of
business, paid valuable consideration, undertaken due diligence, obtained
bank finance. No adverse inference can be drawn merely because the
st
registered sale deed dated 1 September, 2025 do not refer to the earlier ATS.
23.8 Romi Garg has failed to establish any prima facie case in its favour.
The balance of convenience is in favour of defendants no.4 and 5, who are
bonafide purchasers. Irreparable injury would be caused to defendants no.4
and 5 if their lawful enjoyment and use of the subject property is obstructed.
23.9 As per the report of the Local Commissioner, Director of Bhilai
Engineering, Ms. Sagarika Sawhney, is already residing on the first floor of
the GK-II property.
23.10 Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, in order to balance out
any potential loss that may at a later date be proved between Romi Garg and
Sheela Devi, it is requested that sale consideration obtained by Sheela Devi
of Rs.20,50,00,000/- be deposited in Court, subject to the outcome of this suit.
A NALYSIS AND F INDINGS
24. By way of CS(OS) 626/2025, Romi Garg, seeks specific performance
th
of the ATS dated 15 May, 2023 executed in his favour by Sheela Devi in
respect of the suit properties, i.e. the GK-I property and the GK II property.
th
Romi Garg has placed on record a copy of the ATS dated 15 May, 2023. As
per the ATS, Romi Garg was to pay a sum of Rs.12,30,00,000/- as
consideration towards the GK-I property and a sum of Rs.12,20,00,000/-
towards the GK-II property, thereby a total consideration of Rs.24,50,00,000/-
was payable.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 20 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
th
25. The ATS dated 15 May, 2023 records that out of the aforesaid sum,
Rs.13,41,00,000/- has already been paid by Romi Garg to Sheela Devi
through cheque/RTGS. Details, including the dates on which the payments
th
were made have been given in the ATS dated 15 May, 2023.
26. Out of the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs.11,09,00,000/- a
th
sum of Rs.9,50,00,000/- was payable on or before 15 December, 2023 and
st
the remaining sum of Rs.1,59,00,000/- was payable on or before 31 July,
2025. It has been pleaded on behalf of Romi Garg that after the execution of
the aforesaid ATS, further amounts of Rs.1,75,00,000/- and Rs.8,00,00,000/-
th
were paid by Romi Garg to Sheela Devi by way of cheques dated 6 June,
th
2023 and 11 December, 2023, respectively. Romi Garg has placed on record
bank statements of Sheela Devi to show that the aforesaid amounts have been
duly credited.
27. It has further been pleaded on behalf of Romi Garg that he was ready
and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,34,00,000/- on the due date,
st
i.e. 31 July, 2025. Romi Garg has placed on record details of his assets
including stock holdings to show that he was in a position to pay the balance
amount to Sheela Devi (Document 4 of the plaintiff’s documents in CS(OS)
626/2025).
28. It has also been pleaded by Romi Garg that pursuant to the aforesaid
ATS, Sheela Devi handed over the original title documents of the GK II
property to Romi Garg and continue to remain with him. The title documents
pertaining to GK-I property are stated to be with ICICI Bank with whom a
loan had been taken and it was agreed that the same shall be handed over at
the time of registration of the sale deed.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 21 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
th
29. In terms of Clause 5 of the ATS dated 15 May, 2023, Romi Garg had
the right to demolish the existing structure on the aforesaid properties and get
the same constructed through a builder/contractor of his own choice. It has
been pleaded on behalf of Romi Garg that in terms of the aforesaid clause,
Romi Garg undertook construction of the suit properties through his firm
Ecogreen and has incurred expenditure of Rs.7,85,00,000/- towards
construction of the suit properties.
30. Sheela Devi and her other son, Anup Garg, have questioned the validity
th
of the ATS dated 15 May, 2023. The main ground of challenge is that the
signatures of Sheela Devi on the said document have been forged. It is
submitted that the spelling in the signatures of Sheela Devi is wrong in as
much as the signatures bear the name ‘Shila Devi’ instead of ‘Sheela Devi’.
31. Notably, in the bank account statement of Sheela Devi also, her name
st
has been spelled as ‘Shila Devi’. Further, even in the two sale deeds dated 1
September, 2025 executed by Sheela Devi in favour of the subsequent
purchasers, Sheela Devi has signed as ‘Shila Devi’.
th
32. Whether the signatures of Sheela devi on the ATS dated 15 May, 2023
are genuine or not can only be established in the trial. However, on a prima
th
facie view, the signatures of Sheela Devi in the ATS dated 15 May, 2023 and
st
the sale deeds of 1 September, 2025 appear to be the same.
33. One of the witnesses to the said ATS was late Sh. Telu Ram, the father
th
of Romi Garg and husband of Sheela Devi. He has filed an affidavit dated 13
October, 2025 with this Court identifying the signatures of his wife Sheela
Devi on the ATS and further stating that the said ATS has been executed in his
presence.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 22 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
34. The defendants have also taken an objection that Romi Garg has failed
th
to produce the original ATS dated 15 May, 2023. It is the contention of Romi
th
Garg that the original ATS dated 15 May, 2023 was stolen from his premises
th
on 17 February, 2025 by Anup Garg and his associates and an FIR has been
registered with Police Station, Kalkaji in this regard.
34.1 The aforesaid contention has been disputed by the defendants.
th
35. Even if Romi Garg does not have the original ATS dated 15 May, 2023
in his possession, he would be entitled to lead secondary evidence to prove
the same.
36. As is evident from the aforesaid submissions of the parties, there are
th
disputed issues with regard to the execution of the ATS dated 15 May, 2023.
The veracity of the statements made on behalf of the parties can only be tested
in a trial. At this stage, the Court is only required to take a prima facie view.
37. On a prima facie view, it does appear that Romi Garg has paid a sum
th
of Rs.23,16,00,000/- in terms of the ATS dated 15 May, 2023 to Sheela Devi
pursuant to which the original title deeds of the suit properties were handed
over to Romi Garg. At this prima facie stage, Romi Garg has also
demonstrated his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under
the ATS, i.e. payment of the sum of balance amount of Rs. 1,34,00,000/-.
38. As regards the objection of the defendants that the amounts allegedly
paid by Romi Garg to Sheela Devi were only strategic entries and the said
amounts have been siphoned back by Romi Garg, a perusal of the bank
account statement of Sheela Devi does show that amounts have been regularly
credited and subsequently debited from the account of Sheela Devi. On a
prima facie view, the picture that emerges is that the bank account of Sheela
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 23 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
Devi was being managed by one or more of her sons and that is why there
were several back-and-forth entries.
39. In the replication filed by Romi Garg, it is stated that Romi Garg along
with Kapil Garg, Manisha Garg and Ecogreen, paid a sum of
Rs.51,69,89,787/- into the account of Sheela Devi, whereas Sheela Devi paid
a sum of Rs.29,26,28,700/- to Romi Garg/ Kapil Garg/ Ecogreen. It is further
contended that the amounts debited from the account of Sheela Devi are
th
unrelated to the transaction under the ATS dated 15 May, 2023.
40. Whether the funds received by Sheela Devi on behalf of Romi Garg
have been subsequently siphoned away or were voluntarily transferred by
Sheela Devi can only be established in trial. However, even after adjusting the
debit and credit entries in the account of Sheela Devi, on a prima facie view,
it does appear that there is an excess amount of Rs.22,43,61,087/- in the
account of Sheela Devi.
41. The defendants have also pointed out various irregularities in the ATS
th th
dated 15 May, 2023, such as, the stamp paper was purchased on 7 January,
2023 on which date Sheela Devi did not have title to the subject property;
Sheela Devi never authorized anyone to purchase the e-stamp, though it
shows that the same has been purchased by her; stamp paper was purchased
th
four months prior to the date of the ATS, i.e. 15 May, 2023; the consideration
amount has been shown to be ‘nil’and no property description has been given.
42. The true impact of the aforesaid irregularities in the stamp paper would
be considered at the stage of final adjudication of the suit. However, in my
prima facie view, the aforesaid irregularities in the stamp paper would not
invalidate the ATS, nor do they establish that the ATS was forged and/or
fabricated.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 24 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
th
43. Pursuant to the aforesaid ATS dated 15 May, 2023, Romi Garg has
nd
executed another ATS dated 22 July 2024 in favour of White Paper Designs
in respect of the first floor of the GK-II property. As per the said ATS dated
nd
22 July, 2024, White Paper Designs has agreed to purchase the first floor of
the GK-II property for a sale consideration of Rs.6,25,00,000/-. A sum of
Rs.3,37,00,000/- has already been paid by White Paper Designs to Romi Garg
through banking channels. The fact that White Paper Designs is ready and
willing to deposit the balance consideration has been noted by this Court in
th
its order dated 4 July, 2025.
44. During the pendency of the present suits, Sheela Devi executed two
st
separate sale deeds. A sale deed dated 1 September, 2025 in respect of
basement and ground floor of the GK-II property in favour of KIOSK
st
Properties and a sale deed dated 1 September, 2025 in favour of Bhilai
Engineering for the first floor of the GK-II Property.
45. CS(OS) 626/2025 came up for hearing for the first time before this
th
Court on 10 September, 2025. Counsel appeared on behalf of the defendants
and it was stated that they are in possession of the basement, ground floor and
first floor of the GK-II property.
46. The fact that the aforesaid portions of the property had already been
st
sold on 1 September, 2025 was not disclosed to the Court. This fact came to
th
light only on 16 September, 2025 when I.A. 23024/2025 was filed on behalf
of Romi Garg alleging that the defendants have sold the said portions of the
suit properties. The Court expressed its displeasure at the fact that the subject
properties have been sold in haste without informing the Court which was
th
seized of the matter. The relevant extracts from the order dated 16
September, 2026 are set out below:
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 25 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
“ 2. Earlier, another application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC,
being I.A. 22275/2025 was filed on behalf the plaintiff, which came up for
th
hearing along with the suit on 10 September, 2025. Notice was issued in
the said application and the defendants were given two weeks’ time to file
th
reply(ies) and same was posted for hearing on 15 October, 2025.
3. During the hearing it was noted that defendants no.1 and 3 are in
possession of GK-II property, and the second and the third floor of the said
property have already been sold to the third parties.
4. A pointed query was put to the counsel for the defendants, if the defendants
have any intention or plan to sell the aforesaid properties.
5. Mr. L.S. Chaudhary, counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1
submitted in Court that the defendants no.1 and 3 do intend to sell the
aforesaid property.
6. However, today it has come to the notice of the Court that the Ground
Floor, First Floor and Basement of the GK-II property, had already been
st
sold by the defendant no.1 on 1 September, 2025.
7. This fact was not disclosed to the Court by the counsel appearing on
th
behalf of defendant no.1 on 10 September 2025.
8. Mr. Choudhary submits that this information was not shared by the
defendants with him.
9. Defendants no.1 and 3 are present in Court and admit the fact that the
st
aforesaid property was sold by them on 1 September, 2025.
10. It is shocking that this important aspect was not disclosed to the Court
on the said date of hearing.
11. Mr. Sacchin Puri, senior counsel appears on behalf of the buyers of the
aforesaid GK-II property, viz. KIOSK Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Bhilai
Engineering Industries (‘Buyers’), and submits that the aforesaid buyers
have purchased the said properties from the defendant no.1 through a
registered sale deed. He submits that a consideration of Rs.12 crores has
been paid for Ground Floor and Basement of the GK-II property and a
consideration of Rs.8.5 crores has been paid for the First Floor of the GK-
II property.
11.1 Accordingly, the aforesaid buyers are impleaded as parties in the
present suit.
*
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 26 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
12. The plaintiff also submits that besides having paid a sum of Rs.
23,16,00,000/- to defendant no.1, being 95% of the total sale consideration
in terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 15th May, 2023, the plaintiff has
spent a further sum of Rs. 7.85 crores towards construction of the suit
properties.
13. The plaintiff presses for an ad interim order restraining the buyers from
creating any further third party rights in the basement, ground floor and first
floor of the GK-II property as that would lead to multifarious litigation.
14. The plaintiff strongly apprehends that the defendants shall immediately
sell the GK-I property as well, since the defendant no.1 has already sold the
GK-II property pendente lite. Hence, the plaintiff also seeks to restrain the
defendants from creating third party rights in respect of the said GK-I
property.
15. In view of the aforesaid fact, prima facie case is made out on behalf of
the plaintiff. Balance of convenience is also in the favour of plaintiff and an
irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if any further third party
rights are created in the suit properties.
16. Issue notice in the present application.
17. Notice is accepted by the counsel appearing on behalf of defendants no.1
and 3, defendant no.2. Notice is also accepted by the counsel appearing on
behalf of the Buyers/proposed defendants.
18. Reply(ies) be filed within two (2) weeks.
19. In the meanwhile, following ad interim directions are passed:-
i. Status quo with regard to title and possession of the basement, ground
floor and first floor of the GK-II property shall be maintained till the next
date of hearing.
ii. Defendant no.1 is directed to deposit the sale consideration received by
the defendant no.1 in respect of the sale of the basement, ground floor and
first floor of the GK-II property, amounting to Rs.12 crores and Rs.8.5 crores
as disclosed by the counsel for the Buyers within two (2) weeks from today.
iii. The defendants are also restrained from creating any third-party rights,
in respect of the GK-I property till the next date of hearing. ”
47. The aforesaid order was challenged by the defendants by way of an
appeal being FAO(OS) 114/2025 and the direction contained in paragraph
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 27 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
19(ii) was deleted/made inoperative by the Division Bench till the time the
present application is decided by this Court.
th
48. Subsequently, via order dated 16 October, 2025, defendants no.4 and
st
5 were directed to place copies of the original sale deeds dated 1 September,
2025 before the Court.
49. Counsel for Romi Garg and White Paper Designs have further pointed
st
out that the two sale deeds dated 1 September, 2025 are fraudulent and
executed only to defeat the rights of Romi Garg. The sale deeds contained
various false and incorrect statements, which are contrary to the record.
50. This Court takes note of the inconsistencies in the aforesaid sale deeds
st
dated 1 September, 2025 as highlighted below:
50.1 The sale deeds wrongly state that GK-II property was constructed by
Sheela Devi through Anup Garg with her own funds and resources. It is an
admitted position that Romi Garg was constructing the GK-II property
through Ecogreen.
50.2 The sale deeds falsely state that actual physical and vacant possession
of GK-II property has been delivered to defendants no.4 and 5, which is
contrary to the statement made by defendants as recorded in the order passed
th
on 10 September, 2025 to the effect that defendants are in possession of the
GK-II property.
50.3 Clause 7 of the two sale deeds falsely states that GK-II property is free
from any encumbrances and prior litigation. The defendants were fully aware
of CS(OS) 394/2025 filed by White Paper Designs as they were in mediation
in the said suit.
50.4 The sale deeds wrongly state that original documents in respect of GK-
II property shall be kept by Sheela Devi in trust for defendants no.4 and 5,
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 28 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
despite the fact that it is an admitted position that Romi Garg is in possession
of the original title documents of the GK II property.
51. All the aforesaid assertions made in the sale deeds, which are ex-facie
contrary to the record, create doubts with regard to the genuineness of the sale
deeds, on a prima facie view.
st
52. Curiously, the sale deeds were executed on 1 September, 2025 only
about a week after the mediation talks between the parties failed. This Court
finds it unusual that the two sale deeds were executed even though Sheela
Devi did not have the original documents in respect of the GK-II property in
her possession. On a prima facie view, it appears that the two sale deeds have
been executed by Sheela Devi in favour of defendants no.4 and 5 hastily, in
order to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs and to overreach any order that may
be passed in the present suits.
rd
53. Defendants no.4 and 5, in their joint written statement filed on 3
February, 2026, for the first time make a reference to Agreements to Sell that
nd
were executed in their favour in respect of the GK-II Property. ATS dated 2
April, 2024 was disclosed pertaining to first floor of the GK-II property in
th
favour of Bhilai Engineering and ATS dated 10 June, 2025 in respect of
basement and ground floor of the GK-II property in favour of KIOSK
Properties.
54. Detailed submissions on behalf of defendants no.4 and 5 were made on
th
9 January, 2026, and there was no mention of any of the two ATS, nor were
any of the said ATS disclosed in the written statement filed by Romi Garg and
Anup Garg. There is no reference to the aforesaid ATS in the sale deeds
st
executed on 1 September, 2025.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 29 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
55. The two ATS also do not mention any timeframe during which the sale
deeds were to be executed or the balance consideration was to be paid.
nd
56. On behalf of Romi Garg, it is also pointed out that the ATS dated 2
April, 2024 refers to a cheque of Rs.40,00,000/- handed over by Bhilai
Engineering to Sheela Devi. However, this amount does not find a mention in
st
the sale deed executed on 1 September, 2025. Similarly, the sum of
th
Rs.2,00,00,000/- mentioned in theATS dated 11 June, 2025 having been paid
by KIOSK Properties to Sheela Devi does not find a mention in the sale deed
st
executed on 1 September, 2025.
57. Even the statement made on behalf of defendants no.4 and 5 that they
had obtained bank loans for purchase of the GK-II property does not appear
to be credible in light of the fact that the original title deeds of the GK-II
property continue to be in possession of Romi Garg. It is difficult to believe
that a bank would grant a housing loan without even examining the original
rd
title deeds. Notably, both the loan sanction letters bear the dates of 3 July,
th
2025 and 20 August, 2025, respectively, which are subsequent to filing of
CS(OS) 394/2025.
nd
58. On a prima facie view, it appears that the ATS dated 2 April, 2024 was
nd
prepared only to pre-date the ATS dated 22 July, 2024 by Romi Garg in
th
favour of White Paper. The other ATS is purportedly of 11 June, 2025, as in
respect of the said portions of the GK-II property, there was no further ATS
executed by Romi Garg.
59. All these factors create doubts in the mind of the Court with regard to
the genuineness and validity of the two ATS purportedly executed by Sheela
Devi in favour of the subsequent purchasers. On a prima facie view,
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 30 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
defendants no.4 and 5 cannot be regarded as transferees for value who have
paid their money in good faith and without notice of the previous agreement.
60. To summarise, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, the ATS dated
th
15 May, 2023 executed in favour of Romi Garg and the subsequent ATS
nd
dated 22 July, 2024 executed by Romi Garg in favour of White Paper
Designs are valid documents which are enforceable in law. Romi Garg has
paid a sum of Rs.23,16,00,000/- out of the consideration of Rs.24,50,00,000/-
amounting to 94.5% of the total consideration. Pursuant thereto, original title
deeds were handed over to Romi Garg. The plaintiffs have the resources and
have always been ready and willing to pay the balance amount due. Hence,
st
the sale deeds executed on 1 September, 2025 in favour of defendants no.4
and 5, which are subsequent documents, would be subject to the rights granted
in favour of Romi Garg and White Paper Designs under the said Agreements
st
to Sell. Both the sale deeds dated 1 September, 2025 contain various
inconsistencies which create doubt with regard to the genuineness of the said
sale deeds.
C ONCLUSION
61. In light of the discussions above, a prima facie case has been made out
on behalf of the plaintiffs in CS(OS) 626/2025 and CS(OS) 394/2025 for grant
of interim injunction.
62. As per the Local Commissioner’s report, defendants no.4 and 5 are in
possession of first floor of the GK-II property. The second floor and third floor
of the subject property have already been sold to defendants no.4 and 5 earlier
and are outside the ambit of the present dispute.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 31 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
63. Insofar as basement and ground floor of the GK-II property are
th
concerned, in the order passed by this Court on 10 September 2025, it was
noted that Sheela Devi is in possession of the aforesaid properties. However,
st
as per the sale deeds executed on 1 September, 2025, possession of the
aforesaid portions has been handed over by Sheela Devi to defendants no.4
and 5, i.e. the subsequent purchasers.
64. In order to secure the interest of the parties in the present litigation,
balance of convenience requires that the suit properties be preserved. Any
further alienation or dissipation of the suit properties would result in further
third-party rights being created in the suit properties, resulting in multiplicity
of litigation. Irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if any third-
party rights are created.
65. Defendants no.4 and 5 in their written submissions have also stated that
to balance out a potential loss, the sale consideration obtained by Sheela Devi
of Rs.20,50,00,000/- be deposited in Court to await the outcome of the present
suits. Paragraph 79 of the written submission is set out below:
“ 79. That without prejudice to the foregoing, even to balance out any
potential loss that may, at a later date, be proved between the Plaintiff and
the Defendant No.1, it is requested that the Sale Consideration obtained by
the Defendant No.1 of 20.5 Crores can be deposited in Court awaiting the
outcome of the Suit. The same will squarely cover the interest of the Plaintiff
who claims the Petitioner have infact paid only around 12.5 Crores to the
Defendant No.1 for the A-1 Property . ”
66. As discussed above, on a prima facie view, Sheela Devi has received
sum of Rs.23,16,00,000/- out of a total consideration of Rs.24,50,00,000/-
from Romi Garg towards the sale consideration for the suit properties. She
has also received a sum of Rs.20,50,00,000/- towards basement, ground floor
and first floor of the GK-II property from the subsequent purchasers.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 32 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
Therefore, it appears that Sheela Devi has received the sale consideration
twice for the GK-II property.
67. In these circumstances, to secure the interests of the plaintiffs and the
subsequent purchasers, the balance of convenience requires that Sheela Devi
be asked to deposit sum of Rs.20,50,00,000/- as received from the subsequent
purchasers in Court.
68. In view of the discussion above, the following interim directions are
passed:
i. Status quo with regard to title and possession of the basement,
ground floor and first floor of the GK-II property shall be
maintained by the parties till the final disposal of the suits.
ii. Status quo with regard to title and possession in respect of the GK-
I property shall be maintained by the parties till the final disposal of
the suits.
iii. Sheela Devi is directed to deposit in Court the sale consideration
received by the her in respect of the sale of the basement, ground
floor and first floor of the GK-II property, amounting to
Rs.20,50,00,000/- within four (4) weeks from today .
69. The aforesaid amount once deposited in Court may be put in an interest-
bearing deposit. This would secure the interest of the parties which eventually
succeed in the two suits.
70. All the captioned applications are disposed in the aforesaid terms.
71. Needless to state, any observations made herein are only for the
purposes of adjudication of the present applications and would have no
bearing on the final outcome of the present suit.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 33 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25
CS(OS) 394/2025 and CS(OS) 626/2025
st
72. List before the Roster Bench on 21 August, 2026.
AMIT BANSAL
(JUDGE)
July 6, 2026
Vivek/-
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 394/2025 & CS(OS) 626/2025 Page 34 of 34
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:06.07.2026
16:41:25