1 2025:CGHC:12357 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 388 of 2020 1 - Vani Vilas Mahtel S/o Khomlal Mahtel, Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. 3 Ward No. 42, Gokul Kirana Stores, Subhash Nagar, Kasaridih, Durg (Chhattisgarh) Another Address- Khasra No. 123/2, New Khasra No. 123/7, Patwari Halka No. 08/11 Village Chikhli, R.I.C. Durg (Chhattisgarh)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Hemeshwari Mahtel, W/o Vani Vilas Mahtel, Aged About 48 Years R/o House No. 3 Ward No. 42, Gokul Kirana Stores, Subhash Nagar, Kasaridih, Durg Chhattisgarh. Another Address- Khasra No. 123/2, New Khasra No. 123/7, Patwari Halka No. 08/11 Village Chikhli, R.I.C. Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - Reliance Home Finance Limited, Branch Office- Third Floor, Simran Tower, In Front Of Lic Building, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through Its Authorized Officer- Prashant Burman, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioners : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Ankit Singhal, Shri Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Ishan Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.03.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition against the order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Durg, in Revenue Case No. 39/B- 121/2018-19 dated 20.5.2020, whereby the Competent Authority decided the application filed by the respondent herein under SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act, 2002’). 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners applied for a loan facility to the tune of Rs.61,00,000/- and Rs.49,00,000/-, respectively, in aggregate Rs.1,10,00,000/-, from the respondent Bank. The loan was sanctioned and an agreement was entered into on 31.1.2017. The loan was granted against the security of an equitable mortgage on the property being the diverted residential part of Survey 123/2 (new survey No.123/7), Patwari Circle No.8, Village Chikhli, R.I.C. Durg, Tahsil and District Durg. The petitioners were declared NPA by the respondent Bank, and thereafter, an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was moved before the concerned District Magistrate. The record of the concerned District would show that initially, the application moved by the respondent was rejected for want of prosecution vide order dated 30.9.2019. The said application was restored vide order dated 5.11.2019 but thereafter notice was not issued to the petitioners and a final order was passed on 20.5.2020. The petitioners filed this petition challenging the order dated 20.5.2020 on 10.7.2020 inter alia on the ground that the opportunity of hearing was not afforded by the learned District Magistrate before taking the decision. The effect and operation of the order passed under the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was stayed by this Court vide order dated 4.8.2020. The respondents marked their appearance and the record of the learned District Magistrate was called and the same 3 has been received today itself. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently argue that the opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioners, therefore, the order passed by the learned District Magistrate on 20.5.2020 is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. He relied on various decisions in support of his submissions. 4. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Khetrapal. They would submit that the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 were initiated against the petitioners because the petitioners were declared NPA. They would contend that initially, notices were issued to the petitioners, and they appeared in the proceedings pending before the learned District Magistrate. They would further contend that the case was dismissed for want of prosecution, and thereafter again notices were issued. They would also submit that according to the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 there is no requirement to afford the opportunity of hearing to the borrowers. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. A perusal of the record in Case No. 39/B-121/year 2018-19 would reveal that against the order dated 20.5.2020, the petitioners preferred Securitization Application before the learned DRT in the month of June, 2020. One affidavit was executed on 22.6.2020 and another on 30.6.2020. In the Securitization Application, the petitioners challenged the order passed by the learned District -4- Magistrate dated 20.5.2020. Suppressing these facts, the petitioners filed the present petition on 10.7.2020, challenging the very order dated 20.5.2020. This fact was not disclosed by the petitioners in the present petition. It appears that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands, as they were pursuing remedies simultaneously before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal and this Court. The present petition is pending since 2020 and the interim order is operating in favor of the petitioners. 7. It appears that initially, the petitioners approached the learned DRT and thereafter this Court by filing the petition. During the scrutiny of the records of the learned District Magistrate, the fact surfaced that a Securitization Application was filed by the petitioners before the learned DRT. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, this petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Aid Committee. 9. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10.The original record of Revenue Case No. 39/B-121/2018-19 be sent back forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi