[2025:RJ-JP:37395] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1256/2024 1. Jai Bhawani Enterprises, Through Its Proprietor Laxman Rathore S/o Mohabbat Singh Rathore, Aged About 36 Years, R/o- Plot No. 111, Ward No. 09, Khatipura Road, Shilip Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur- 302012 2. Laxman Rathore S/ Mohabbat Singh Rathore, Aged About 36 Years, R/o- Plot No. 111, Ward No. 09, Khatipura Road, Shilip Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur- 302012 ----Petitioners Versus 1. Au Small Finance Bank Ltd., (Former Name - Au Financer Limited) 19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur- 302001 Rajasthan 2. Smt. Taruna Raj W/o Laxman Rathore, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Plot No. 111, Ward No. 09, Khatipura Road, Shilip Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Sanwariya for Mr. Ram Naresh Vijay JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/09/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to: I) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to quash and set aside all the proceedings taken under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder in relation to order dated 01.03.2023 (Annexure-1). II) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be to quash and set aside all the proceedings taken under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder in relation to the purported demand notices dated 14.09.2022. [2025:RJ-JP:37395] (2 of 2) [CW-1256/2024] III) Respondent may kindly be directed the respondent to give four months extension to the petitioner to make compensatory amount to regularize loan account of the petition which is illegal, arbitrary and malafide made account NPA by the respondent. IV) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. V) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner under Sections 13 & 14 of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act of 2002”) and the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to grant him some extension to make compensatory amount to regularise his loan account. 3. It appears that the petitioner has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “DRT”) for redressal of his grievances and his Securitization Application is still lying pending for its adjudication on its merits. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner can make such prayer before the DRT where his Securitization Application is pending. When the matter is subjudiced before the DRT, this Court cannot intervene and pass additional directions in exercise of its inherent power contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition, stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/13