[2025:RJ-JP:2163] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14040/2024 1. Kanhaiya Lal Sharma S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, R/o Plot No.-130, Devraj Nagar-2, Mandram Pura, Sanganer, Jaipur 2. Smt. Deepika Sharma, W/o Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, R/o Of Plot No.-130, Devraj Nagar-2, Mandram Pura, Sanganer, Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus Mentor Home Loans India Ltd., Registered Housing Finance Company, B-9, Mentor House, Govind Marg, Sethi Colony, Jaipur- 302004 Through Its Authorized Representative ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Jeswani with Mr. Pranav Sharma for Mr. Mohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 16/01/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the DRAT’), Mumbai ordering maintaining of status quo. Further prayer is that the DRAT, New Delhi be directed to decide the appeal No.121/2024 within a period of thirty days. 2. The brief facts are that in the year 2018 the petitioners availed a loan facility to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/-. The petitioners failed to maintain financial discipline and the account was declared non-performing asset. The proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial [2025:RJ-JP:2163] (2 of 3) [CW-14040/2024] Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 by issuing notice under Section 13(2) and 13 (4) of the Act. The petitioners availed the remedy before the DRT challenging the notice. One of the contention raised was that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was not served as per the procedure, though it was published in two newspapers. The Securtization Application was accepted on 23.02.2024. The financial institution was directed to revert back the possession of the mortgaged property. In appeal filed by financial institution before the DRAT, the respondent appeared on 22.03.2024, and sought time to file reply. The DRAT considering that the time to revert possession of the mortgaged property was expiring, directed that in the meantime status quo be maintained. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the status quo has been ordered to be maintained by a non-speaking order. The prayer is that after passing of the interim order till date the matter is not being heard by the DRAT and directions be issued for time bound disposal. 4. The challenge to interim order being non speaking lacks merit. On receipt of the notice of appeal petitioner sought time to file reply and on the other hand time to revert back the possession of the mortgaged property was expiring in this background as an interim measure the parties were directed to maintain status quo. It cannot be lost sight that the stay application as on date is pending before the DRAT and the petitioners shall have an opportunity to oppose the interim protection. 5. There is nothing on record to show that any request by filing an application before the DRAT was made by the petitioners for [2025:RJ-JP:2163] (3 of 3) [CW-14040/2024] early disposal. The appeal is of 2024, the daily docket of the DRAT is not before this Court. No case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 6. The writ petition is disposed of. 7. However the petitioners shall be at liberty to file an application before the DRAT for early hearing of the appeal. There is no doubt in eventuality of a request being made and the same would be considered by the in accordance with law taking into account that the mortgaged property is the only residential house of the petitioners. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/11 Reportable:- Yes