SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS 2437/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Dalakoti, Advocate, for the respondent no. 1 and 2. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3. (2) Petitioner is a borrower, against whom proceedings were initiated under SARFAESI Act, 2002. He filed securitisation application before DRT, Dehradun, which was decided in his favour. According to petitioner, despite the decision rendered by DRT, Dehradun in favour of the petitioner, his title documents, which were mortgaged in favour of Aditya Birla Finance Ltd., are not being released. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal to decide the Misc. Application No. 25 of 2024, “M/s Ajay Kashyap & Co. & Ors. Vs. M/s Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.” in a time bound manner inasmuch as inspite of payment of entire loan amount, the original title documents of the mortgaged property is not being released by the respondent Finance Company. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to release the original Title Documents of the mortgaged property in favour of the petitioner as per the statutory directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 13.09.2023 (Annexure No. 16 to the writ petition) as the petitioner has already paid the entire loan amount on 19.10.2023.” (3) Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, submits that prayer no. 1 has become infructuous inasmuch as Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2024 has already been decided by DRT, Dehradun on 18.10.2024. He submits that respondent no. 1 and 2 have been directed to release the petitioner’s title documents. (4) Mr. Alok Dalakoti, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and 2, however submits that against the decision rendered by DRT, Dehradun, his client has filed appeal before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, which is still pending. (5) Since the judgment rendered by DRT, Dehradun has not attained finality and it is subject to appeal, therefore, prayer no. 2 also cannot be granted. Thus there is no scope for interference in the matter. Writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 11.3.2025 Pr