1 / 5 2025:CGHC:49801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5213 of 2025 1 - Rajkumari Patel W/o Late Jagdish Patel Aged About 50 Years 2 - Ku. Lilu Patel D/o Late Jagdish Patel Aged About 21 Years 3 - Ku. Ritu Patel D/o Late Jagdish Patel Aged About 19 Years 4 - Sagar Patel S/o Late Jagdish Patel Aged About 14 Years Through His Legal Guardian Mother- Rajkumari Patel W/o Late Jagdish Patel, Above all petitioners are R/o Ward No. 2, Shitlapara, Patel Gali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Ltd. Through Authorized Officer, Address- Balaji Plaza, First Floor, Tiwari Bada, Bastar Road, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 – ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd Address- Plot No. 30 B, Sunilam Complex, Bastar Road, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - State of C.G. Through Tehsildar Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No.1 : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents / State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 07/10/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.10.07 17:50:26 +0530 2 / 5 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- 10.1] That this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, direction/directions, Order/orders and the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned possession warrant dated 15/09/2025 issued by the Tehsildar, Dhamtari, in the interest of justice. 10.2] That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/ writs, direction/directions, Order/Orders and the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 04/03/2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari in C.A. No.411/2025, in the interest of justice. 10.3] Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the validity, legality and propriety of the Possession Warrant dated 15/09/2025 issued by the Tehsildar, Dhamtari, directing the petitioners to deliver the physical possession of the immovable property situated at Village Dhamtari, Tehsil Dhamtari, Bearing Khasra No.7/39/4, Patwari Halka Number 33, Admeasuring 475 Sq. Feet to Respondent No.1 on or before 08/10/2025 in compliance of the order dated 04/03/2025 passed in C.A. No.411/2025 passed by the CJM, Dhamtari, C.G. 3. The brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioners are that the Late Jagdish Patel (the original borrower) had taken a housing loan from Respondent No.1, which is a finance company, of Rs.30,00,000.00. Thereafter the original /principal borrower i.e. Jagdish Patel died on 17/02/2023. Respondent No. 1 finance 3 / 5 company declared the account as NPA on 07.08.2023, with an outstanding amount of Rs. 31,10,054.00. However, while a notice under Section 13(2) was issued by the respondent finance company, no prior intimation or notice under Section 13(4) was received by the petitioners. The Respondent No. 1 finance company had taken a life insurance policy of Rs. 30,00,000.00 through Policy No. D6690809, dated 14.10.2020, from the respondent insurance company ICICI Prudential Super Protect Credit GP on behalf of the borrower, Late Jagdish Patel, for risk coverage on a single premium basis. The premium of Rs. 54,757.00 was paid by the borrower. Respondent No. 1 finance company had also taken a risk life policy for loan coverage on a single premium basis. Additionally, two more premiums totaling Rs. 74,276.00 were paid without any prior information to the borrower. However, the insurance company did not consider the death claim of the borrower. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the Petitioners submitted an application before the District Consumer Forum, Dhamtari, C.G. on 07.03.2023, providing all necessary documents and proof and the District Consumer Forum, Dhamtari, CG, passed an order dated 03.05.2024 in favor of the petitioners, directing the consideration of the complete death claim along with compensation. He would next contend that being aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 & 2 have preferred appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Committee, Raipur (C.G.) which was allowed. The Petitioners have also preferred further Appeal before 4 / 5 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi which is pending under consideration. He would next contend that after the District Consumer Forum passed an order to repay the loan amount of the petitioners, the finance company filed an application under Section 14 before CJM Dhamtari, notice of which was received by the petitioners and they responded to the Section 14 application through their advocate and all the information was given before CJM Dhamtari. The counsel for the petitioners cross- examined the matter under Section 14 before CJM Dhamtari, but CJM Dhamtari observed that under Section 14, they have to see the compliance of procedure of Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) and have to resolve it, therefore, parties can state their grievances on this matter in the appeal under Section 17 and get this order quashed, while observing this, CJM Dhamtari passed the final order under section 14 on 04.03.2025. Assailing the above mentioned order, the Petitioners have preferred Appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He would next contend that there is no doubt the liability of payment of loan amount was on the principal borrower Late Jagdish Patel and after his death it has been shifted to his surviving legal heirs. He would next contend that the sole bread earner has died, leaving behind, his home maker wife and children (one of them is still minor), thus, it is hopefully and humbly prayed that seven days time may be granted to the petitioners to file the appropriate appeal before the DRT and the impugned notice dated 15/09/2025 may kindly be stayed. 5 / 5 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case, specially the fact that the principal borrower has died, no prejudice would be caused if seven days stay is granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for a period of 07 days from today pursuant to the impugned possession warrant dated 15/09/2025. After lapse of 07 days period, this order shall lose its efficacy and the authorities shall be at liberty to proceed as per law. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the DRT shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court and shall proceed in accordance with law on its own merits. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu