HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10010 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Abhishek Khare, the learned counsel for the petitoner, Shri Ashwini Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for Union of India, Shri Akshay Bajpai, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Union Bank of India and Shri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in Securitization Application No.386 of 3. The opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has got a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Securitization Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 4. Confronted with the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press the present petition and seeks liberty to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the Additional City Magistrare (sixth), Lucknow had issued a notice on 20.09.2025 to the petitioner asking him to handover possession of the property within 15 days failing which possession shall be taken on 08.10.2025 but possession of the property has not been taken till date. He has submitted that since possession of the property has not been taken on the date mentioned in the notice, a fresh possession notice should be issued to the petitioner. 5. Replying to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the respondent bank has submitted that the petition admits that a notice has been issued to the petitioners for vacating the property and that notice has been served upon him also and, therefore, the bank is entitled to take possession of the property. 6. However, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute that the notice mentioned that the possession of the property shall be taken on 08.10.2025 and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar, Abhishek Khare Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Manish Misra Kailashpati Tiwari Alias Kailasha And Another .....Petitioner(s) U.O.I. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance New Delhi And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the possession has not been taken on the date mentioned in the notice. 7. In these circumstances, it is provided that before taking possession of the property, the bank shall issue a fresh notice to the petition. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and in case such an appeal is filed and any application seeking interim relief filed therein, the application for interim relief and the appeal itself shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. October 17, 2025 -Amit K- WRIC No. 10010 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench