1 / 4 2025:CGHC:54326 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5864 of 2025 1. M/s Shammi Paddy Through Its Proprietor Tejpal Singh Kukreja, S/o Shri Gurmukh Kukreja, Office At Gurnoor Dhaba, Main Road, Distt. Gariyaband, Chhattigarh. 2. Tejpal Singh Kukreja S/o Shri Gurumukh Kukreja Aged About 55 Years R/o Gurnoor Dhaba, Main Road, Distt. Gariyaband, Chhattigarh. ... Petitioners versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Distt. Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Tehsildar Tahsil Gariyaband Distt. Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 3. D.C.B. Bank Limited Having Its Regd Office At 6th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business, Park, Senapati Bazar Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 (Mh) 4. The Branch Manager D.C.B. Bank Limited, Bs. Saw Mill, Village Kurra, Post Patewa, Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 07/11/2025 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the Petitioner(s)'s case. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue such writ / orders / direction of appropriate nature, quashing the impugned memo / letter dated 29.10.2025 (Ann P-1), issued by the Respondent No.02, since the same is assumptive, erroneous and contrary PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA Date: 2025.11.07 15:14:33 +0530 2 / 4 to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and by the learned DRT. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue such writ / orders / direction against the Respondent No.02, restraining him from initiating any action against the Petitioners without complying with the procedure under the law and the direction issued by the learned DRT. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the Petitioner(s). 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner(s), in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners against the proceedings initiated against them under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”) by Respondent No. 3, have already filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( for short DRT), Jabalpur which is pending consideration. He also contended that initially on 23.08.2024 an order was passed in favour of petitioners observing that “as no execution notice yet issued against applicants therein, respondent was directed to issue and serve atleast 15 days prior notice to applicants if likely to execute the order”. The order passed by the DRT, Jabalpur was put to challenge in a writ petition bearing WPC No. 3028/2025 before this Court and the said writ petition came to be allowed directing to conclude the proceedings of execution within 60 days. After getting knowledge of the order passed in writ petition on 15.07.2025, petitioners have filed review application and grounds raised in the review application and the submission made by the counsel therein, review application was allowed and the order dated 15.07.2025 passed in writ petition was recalled and the writ petition was restored to its original number. He contended that thereafter the writ petition was disposed of on 29.08.2025 observing that the interim order has 3 / 4 passed by the DRT in its earlier order has not been extended and based on the submission made by both the sides, the writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the parties to pursue the matter before the DRT in accordance with law. He submits that the Tahsildar is not complying with the order of DRT of giving 15 days prior notice before taking possession of the secured assets and vide Annexure P-1 dated 29.10.2025 the date fixed for taking possession was 07.11.2025 which is less than 10 days and therefore the memo of Tahsildar be interdicted. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners against the proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act have already submitted an application before the DRT, Jabalpur which is pending consideration before the said authority in S.A. No. 685/2024. In the application filed by petitioners before the DRT, Jabalpur, when it came up for hearing on 28.03.2024, the Tribunal has only observed that before taking possession 15 days prior notice be given. There is no observation of the Tribunal that it ordered for staying the execution proceedings. In the subsequent hearing on 27.10.2025 also, when case was heard by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad as an additional charge of DRT, Jabalpur, it is only observed that respondent shall issue fresh notice of 15 days before taking possession. On that date of hearing also petitioners could not succeed to get the execution proceedings stayed but in presence of both the sides DRT has passed an order of issuing 15 days notice for taking possession and word ‘shall’ has been used. 5. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when the application, filed before DRT, is still pending consideration, petitioners if they are aggrieved by the notice issued by the Tahsildar are having remedy available to file appropriate application/ proceeding before the DRT, Jabalpur and which could be heard by the DRT having an additional charge of DRT, Jabalpur ie., DRT, 4 / 4 Allahabad. 6. For the foregoing discussion and reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition in view of the remedy available to petitioners under law to file appropriate application before the DRT. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE