HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9216 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard Ms. Fuhar Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri Vinay Shanker, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging that against the action initiated by the respondent-Bank under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, an SA No.366 of 2023 was preferred. Subsequently, in view of the subsequent development, as the same has taken place, the petitioner challenged the same by moving an I.A. No.991 of 2025. The petitioner also filed an application challenging the order passed under Section 14. On the said applications, an order came to be passed on 06.06.2025 whereby, it was observed that although this Court had directed for decision on the applications, it was necessary that the amendments be carried out and a copy of the same be supplied to the respondent-Bank and the matter was directed to be listed on 14.11.2025 giving liberty to move an application in case of urgency. Subsequently, an order was passed on 28.08.2025 wherein it was recorded that the Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is ready and willing to pay the entire amount and if some time is given, the applicant will remove the belongings. In view of the said, it was recorded that nothing wrong was found in the order passed under Section 14. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner states that in the said order dated Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sushil Kumar, Devesh Srivastava, Fuhar Gupta, Harshita Rajnish, Tanuj Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kapish Srivastava Narendra Kumar Srivastava And Another .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Distt. Magistrate Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 28.08.2025, the recordings insofar as it relating to the applicant, were wrongly recorded, as such, an application was moved seeking for recall of the order dated 28.08.2025 insofar as it recorded that if some time is granted, the applicant will remove the belongings. The said application is said to be pending. 4. In the light of the said, the argument of the petitioner is that on the one hand, the SA, which challenges the action initiated under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, the subsequent sale as well as the order passed under Section 14 is yet to be heard on the interim application, no orders have been passed and the order under Section 14 is being executed. 5. The Counsel for the respondent-Bank agrees that the application seeking recall of the order dated 28.08.2025 is pending and should be decided by the DRT. 6. Considering the said submission, the present petition is disposed off directing the DRT concerned to pass specific orders on the application seeking stay from dispossession. While doing so, he would consider whether the respondent-Bank had followed the mandate at the time of issuance of notice under Section 13. The DRT would also consider whether the sale is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules applicable thereto, and would also consider the application seeking recall of the order dated 28.08.2025. The DRT shall pass such orders within a period of four weeks from today. 7. Till the decision on the said application, no coercive action shall be taken from dispossessing the petitioners from the premises in question. 8. The learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate the gist of the order orally to the ADM, Finance and the SHO, Krishna Nagar, Lucknow not to give effect to any dispossession, which is proposed to be carried out. September 16, 2025 akverma WRIC No. 9216 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench