[2025:RJ-JP:24388] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7797/2025 1. Kanhaiya Lal Sharma S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, R/o Plot No. 130, Devraj Nagar-2, Mandram Pura, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Smt. Deepika Sharma W/o Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, R/o Of Plot No. 130, Devraj Nagar, -2, Mandram Pura, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versusp Mentor Home Loans India Ltd., Registered Housing Finance Company, B-9, Mentor House, Govind Marg, Sethi Colony, Jaipur. Through Its Authorized. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal Mr. Pranav Sharma Mr. Aditya Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/07/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing a direction to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the DRT’) to decide the pending appeal expeditiously within a time frame. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’) were initiated against the petitioners by the respondent-Finance Company. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid action of the respondent was assailed by the petitioners before the DRT by way of filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. [2025:RJ-JP:24388] (2 of 2) [CW-7797/2025] Counsel submits that the aforesaid application was allowed by the DRT vide order dated 23.02.2024 and a direction was issued to the respondent -Finance Company to restore the possession of the petitioner. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent-Finance Company preferred an appeal before the DRT wherein interim order has been passed on 22.03.2024 and the order passed by the DRT has been stayed. Counsel submits that inspite of passing of considerable time, till date, the said appeal has not been decided by the DRT inspite of several efforts made by the petitioners for its early hearing and early disposal. Counsel submits that because of operation of the stay order, the petitioners are not in a position to get the possession of the premises in question, hence a direction be issued to the DRT to decide the pending appeal expeditiously within a time frame. 3. Considering the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and looking to the overall facts and circumstances, as narrated by the counsel for the petitioners, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition by issuing a direction to the DRT to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending appeal expeditiously as early as possible within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. 4. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/17