2025:UHC:7959 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2536 of 2025 09th September, 2025 Hardeep Singh ………….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil K. Dabral, Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Sudhir Nainwal, S.C. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 02.05.2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Application No.113 of 2025, Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Ltd. Vs. Moti Ram and another, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2002”), by which the secured creditor was directed to take possession of the secured assets i.e., the house now according to the petitioner belongs to him. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the loan was advanced to Moti Ram – the original owner of the house – on 30.04.2015. The said house was already sold by way of a registered sale deed on 29.04.2015 to one Vidyawati who sold this house to the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed on 13.08.2019 and since then the petitioner is owner and is in possession of the aforesaid house. 3. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is owner in possession 1 2025:UHC:7959 of the secured assets, therefore no proceeding under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 could have been initiated without hearing him. 4. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that he did not received the notice under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act of 2002 and he was not a party in the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. 5. This Court has appreciated the factual position canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. An amendment has been brought to Section 17 of the Act of 2002 by Amending Act No.44 of 2016 w.e.f., 01.09.2016 and thereafter such a claim can be considered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on an application made by the affected person; therefore this Court is not inclined to invoke supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Accordingly writ petition stands dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to ascertain his rights where the disputed facts can be entertained while hearing the application. 8. Interim order dated 29.08.2025 stands vacated. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.09.2025 SK 2