1 2025:CGHC:51424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5394 of 2025 1 - Shri Rajeshwar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Ram Vishal Tiwari Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Pathharra, Tehsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Rahul Tiwari S/o Shri Rajeshwar Tiwari Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Pathharra, Tehsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Central Bank Of India Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Vivekanand Ashram, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Office Of Collector, Tehsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tehsildar Village Pathharra, Tehsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) For Caveator For State : : : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mrs. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 15/10/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 2 “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the instant case. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Recovery Officer, Jabalpur in Execution Case No. 89/2012, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of the rights of the petitioner; 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to order any appropriate writ/s, direction/s to the respondent not to initiate any further process till the case of the petitioners is heard by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, issue an appropriate writ, direction to the respondents to ensure immediate consideration and hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 30(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 either before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur or before any other competent Tribunal/forum, so that the petitioner’s 3 statutory right of appeal is not defeated. 10.5 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, direction in favour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present writ petition is being filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Learned Recovery Officer DRT Jabalpur in Execution Case No. 89/2012, whereby coercive steps have been directed against the petitioners. The petitioners state that they were never duly served in the original application filed by the Respondent Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which was disposed of ex parte on 08.05.2024, when the petitioners came to know of the proceedings, they filed objections. However, the Recovery Officer by order dated 14.08.2025 rejected their objections in a manner highly pre-judicial to their rights. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 contended that the matter relates with SARFAESI Act, therefore it is not maintainable before this Court. He further argued that under Section 13(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 there is a mandatory provision of depositing 50% amount. 5. Learned Counsel for the Caveator contended that property of the petitioners are already been auctioned by the Recovery Officer who is a competent authority which has already been sold to the 4 Caveator/ auction purchaser. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 7. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions of the counsels, be that as it may, it will be appropriate to direct the DRT, Allahabad to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 30(1) of the Recover of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, expeditiously as soon as possible, strictly in accordance with law and the petitioner may pursue the matter before the DRT Allahabad at the earliest, if so desire. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with respect to the merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima