[2025:RJ-JP:17668] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Restoration Application No. 257/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12647/2025 Thakur Das S/o Late Shri Gehi Mal, aged about 63 Years, R/o Sindhi Colony, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sbfc Finance Pvt. Ltd., having its Office At Unit No. 103, First Floor C And B Square, Sangam Complex Cps No. 95A, 127, Andheri Kurla Road, Village Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 059 2. Mukesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Prahalad Choudhary, R/o Pandavo Ki Dhani, Village Shikarpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. M/s Shree Krishna Screen Art, Village Jotdawala, Goshala Mandir Ke Paas, Shikarpura, Sanganer, Jaipur. 4. Girdhari Lal Yadav S/o Shri Shyam Lal Yadav, R/o Badi Wali Dhani, Ward No. 5, Amarpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Santosh Devi Yadav, R/o Heeralal Thekedar Ki Dhani, Shikarpura, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sharma Ms. Neha Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/04/2025 1. The instant restoration application has been preferred for recalling the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by this Court by which the writ petition bearing No. 12647/2021 submitted by the [2025:RJ-JP:17668] (2 of 4) [WRES-257/2025] petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution and for restoration of the above writ petition to its original number. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear before the Court when the case was called, under a miscommunication, hence, the order dated 16.01.2025 be recalled and the writ petition be restored to its original number. 3. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is neither borrower nor a guarantor of the secured creditor rather a fraud was played with him by the respondent No.2 i.e. Mukesh Kumar Choudhary, in whose favour, the Power of Attorney was executed and the same was subsequently withdrawn but after cancellation of the Power of Attorney, he sold the property of the petitioner to the respondent No.4-Girdhari Lal Yadav, in connivance with the respondent No.2 and mortgaged the said property of the petitioner and borrowed loan against it. Counsel submits that an FIR was lodged by the petitioner and the respondent No.1 was bent upon to dispossess the petitioner for recovery of the loan which was taken by the respondent No.2. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition wherein an interim order was passed on 16.11.2021 to maintain status-quo with regard to the property in dispute and thereafter, the affairs of the respondent No.1 were taken over by the Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company and the petitioner submitted an application for their substitution and the said application is still pending for adjudication before this Court. In the meantime, the case was called and was dismissed in default on 16.01.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:17668] (3 of 4) [WRES-257/2025] 4. Heard and considered the submission made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court is not going into the controversy involved in this petition, as the matter relates to non-payment the loan by the secured creditor. If at all the fraud has been committed with the petitioner by way of Power of Attorney of alleged borrower by mortgaging the property of the petitioner, the matter pertains to recovery of loan under the provisions of DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and the mechanism to deal with it and for redressal of grievances of the aggrieved persons has been provided under the various provisions of the said Acts. Hence, under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society V/s. UCO Bank & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4845/2024), wherein it has been categorically held by their Lordships and clarified that the High Court will not entertain such like petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if alternative statutory remedy is available with the aggrieved person under the DRT Act or SARFAESI Act. 6. Keeping in view the law, as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society (Supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain the restoration application and the same is hereby rejected on this count alone, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal by way of filing an application for redressal of his grievance. It is expected from the Tribunal to consider all the objections of the [2025:RJ-JP:17668] (4 of 4) [WRES-257/2025] petitioner, which have been raised in this petition by deciding the application submitted by the petitioner, ignoring the period of limitation. 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 8. It is made clears that whatever has been observed by this Court, will not affect and come into the way of the Tribunal while deciding the application submitted by the petitioner. The Tribunal would decide the same on its merits without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/206