Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4272-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 266 of 2025 Petitioner :- Axis Bank Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Abhishek Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Considering the law elucidated by this Court in recent judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed in Writ C No. 8867 of 2024 and judgment dated 14.11.2024, passed in Writ C No. 9723 of 2024, the borrower does not have any right of being heard in the proceedings under Section 14, but unfortunately, most of the proceedings as also in this case, not only notices have been issued to the borrower, but he is also participating in the proceedings. 2. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was filed claiming possession of the secured asset, however, during its pendency, on 17.07.2023, the bank got possession of the secured asset, accordingly, it filed an application for withdrawal of the proceedings on 18.07.2023, but thereafter, the borrowers regained the possession on 29.07.2023. Consequently, an endorsement of "not pressed" was made by the counsel for the petitioner for withdrawal on 11.08.2023, as claimed. 3. The application under Section 14 was filed on 18.05.2023, however, from the afÏdavit of the borrower before the A.D.M, it appears that his claim is that the bank never took the possession and that the borrower has always been in possession. This is mentioned in para-3 of the afÏdavit/written statement/counter afÏdavit filed by the said parties before the A.D.M. 4. On being asked to demonstrate the factum about the borrower having regained the possession being brought to the notice of the A.D.M, no such document could be placed before us except to say that the learned counsel for the Bank had thereafter made an endorsement of "not pressed" on the application for withdrawal. 5. We do not wish to enter into this controversy as even the borrower claims to be in possession, as noticed hereinabove. 6. Be that as it may, we have already held that the proceedings under Section 14 are not adjudicatory in nature. 7. In the circumstances stated hereinabove, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 8. The A.D.M shall now proceed to consider the application of the petitioner bank under Section 14 as per the aforesaid pronouncements and conclude the proceedings at the earliest, say within month unless there is any legal impediment, in which case, it shall be mentioned in the ordersheet and the petitioner shall be informed in writing. 9. The application of the petitioner for withdrawal of the proceedings shall be treated as not pressed and shall be consigned. It is the application under Section 14 which shall be reconsidered in the light of the law referred hereinabove. 10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench