[2025:RJ-JP:21734] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7471/2025 1. Mrs. Annu Sharma W/o Mr. Shankar Lal Sharma, R/o Plot No. 206, Pujariyon Ka Mohalla, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Mr. Shankar Lal Sharma S/o Mr. Beni Prasad, R/o Plot No. 206, Pujariyon Ka Mohalla, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Mr. Satya Narayan Sharma S/o Mr. Beni Prasad, R/o Plot No. 206, Pujariyon Ka Mohalla, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Mrs. Suman Sharma W/o Mr. Satya Narayan Sharma, R/o Plot No. 206, Pujariyon Ka Mohalla, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited, Having Registered Office At 6Th Floor, Plot No. 15, Institutional Area, Sector 44 Gurugram, Haryana And Having Branch Office At 509, Sanghi Upasana Tower, 5Th Floor, Above Vijaya Bank, Near Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, ‘the DRT’) by which the interim application submitted by the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) pending before the DRT has been rejected. [2025:RJ-JP:21734] (2 of 2) [CW-7471/2025] 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a marriage in the family of the petitioner and on account of financial crises, the petitioner is not in position to deposit the entire outstanding amount, he is ready and willing to deposit Rs. 6,00,000/-, so a sympathetic view has to be taken against him for granting some reasonable time to pay the rest of the outstanding amount. Counsel submits that the said prayer was also made before the DRT but the same was not entertained and by way of filing writ petition, the same prayer is made before this Court. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Ors. reported in 2022 (5) SCC 345 has deprecated such practice of the High Court by entertaining such writ petition in exercise of the jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein challenge has been led to the orders passed by the DRT when the alternative remedy of filing appeal before the DRT is available, hence the present writ petition is not maintainable 5. On this count alone, the present writ petition is dismissed. It goes without saying that the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the statutory remedy available to him before the DRT against the order passed by the DRT. 6. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/17