HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10429 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Indu Prakash Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 & 2, Sri Abhishek Khare, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4. 2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have made the following prayers:- (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal Lucknow to pass suitable interim order during the pendency of Securitization Application bearing no. 81 of 2024 as the Respondents are trying to take possession of the property continuously. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioners during the pendency of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Indu Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Abhishek Khare, Anurag Srivastava, Vinay Shankar Bhawna Rastogi And Anothers .....Petitioner(s) D.M. Lko And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Securitization Application bearing no. 81 of 2024 pending before Hon'ble DRT. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal Lucknow to decide the urgency application dated 23/09/2025 within stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing to the opposite party no. 3 to allow the petitioner to deposit the outstanding of his loan account in equal easy installments. (v) Issue any other Order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 has filed a short counter affidavit and he has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners' application for interim relief was rejected by the Debts Recovery Tribunal by means of order dated 21.06.2025. The petitioners have not assailed validity of the aforesaid order and it has attained finality. He has further submitted that the petitioners have not even disclosed this fact while seeking writ of mandamus in the nature of in the nature of interim relief that his application for interim relief has already been rejected by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He has submitted that the petitioners are guilty of concealment of material facts and as they have not approached this Court with clean hands, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The third preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the petitioners' application for interim relief has been rejected from which he is aggrieved and instead of assailing the order rejecting the prayer for interim WRIC No. 10429 of 2025 2 relief, the petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus in the nature of interim relief, which would in effect amount to nullify the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal rejecting the application for interim relief, without the same having being challenged. 5. Confronted with the aforesaid objections, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he does not want to press the writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. October 30, 2025 Pradeep/- WRIC No. 10429 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench