1 2025:CGHC:50664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5162 of 2025 1 - Smt. Reshma Jethani W/o Shri Sunny Jethani Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 7, Raj Villa, Street No. 2, Mahesh Colony, Gudiyari, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Lic Housing Finance Ltd Through Authorized Officer, Branch Ii Floor, Shyam Square, Pandri, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tahsildar Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anshit Singh Hora, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri Sourabh Jain and Shri Ayush Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Soumitra Kesarwani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/10/2025 With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The issue in the present case is whether the petition is maintainable or not before this Court. 2 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection against dispossession from her residential house which has been mortgaged with respondent No.1/finance company, till the pendency of proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Jabalpur. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 along with an application for interim relief, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. It is submitted that the matter is pending consideration andhe next date of hearing is 25.11.2025. 5. It is further submitted that despite the pendency of the said proceedings before the DRT, respondent No.2/Tahsildar, Raipur has initiated proceedings for dispossession in compliance with the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Raipur under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Learned counsel submits that in these circumstances, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court seeking protection till her interim application before the DRT is heard and decided. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the writ petition and submits that the petitioner has already availed the alternative statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. It is contended that since the matter is sub judice before the competent forum and has been fixed for hearing on 25.11.2025, the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue her remedy before the DRT. 3 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur by filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act along with an application for interim relief and that the said matter is pending consideration with the next date fixed for 25.11.2025. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has approached the competent statutory forum, namely the DRT, it would be appropriate for her to pursue her remedy before the said forum, as the DRT is vested with the jurisdiction to examine all the grievances arising from measures taken under the SARAESI Act. 8. However, considering that the petitioner apprehends immediate dispossession, it is observed that in case of any emergent situation, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the DRT, Jabalpur for urgent hearing of her interim relief application. 9. In view of the above observation, the petition stands disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall pursue her pending application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. In the event of any emergency or imminent threat of dispossession, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an application for urgent hearing before the DRT, Jabalpur which shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.10.14 18:58:44 +0530