Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33687-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 190 of 2025 Appellant :- Mohit And 2 Others Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Piyush Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Brajendra Amiy Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Sri Nikhil Srivastava, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 3 by filing his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Heard Sri Manoj Kuamr Mishra, Advocate, assisted by Sri Piyush Tripathi, Advocate, for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, Sri Akshay Bajpai, and Sri Aman Pandey, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and Sri Sachin Upadhyaya and Sri Nikhil Srivastava, learned counsel for the opp. party Nos. 3 and 4. This intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 has assailed the judgment dated 28.05.2025 passed by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This court has categorically observed that there is no reason to exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal for rejecting the interim relief application once due opportunity was afforded to the appellant-petitioners, more so when a remedy of appeal is available to them under Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The appellants have admittedly defaulted in payment of loan obtained by them against the secured asset and the proceedings as to declaration of the loan account as 'non-performing' and proceeding for recovery are already subjudice before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Once the appellant has a remedy of appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and this court has declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for just reasons, we do not find any illegality which the impugned order suffers from for interference in exercise of the appellate power under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants has requested that he may be allowed to file an appeal against the rejection of interim relief application by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 14.05.2025 within a week and until disposal of the application for interim relief to be filed therein, status quo existing as on date may be maintained. The order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal rejecting the application for interim relief takes into account all the relevant aspects of the matter and it is not for us to go into the legality of the reasons one way or the other, which may be well looked into the domain by the Appellate Tribunal as soon as the appeal is filed. We, however, direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal to consider the appellants' application for interim relief expeditiously and preferably within 2 weeks from the date of institution of the appeal. Any action taken in the meantime shall abide by the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal on the interim relief application or the appeal. With the above observations, the intra-court appeal is disposed of. (Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) Order Date :- 30.5.2025 A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench