1 2025:CGHC:56264 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6037 of 2025 1 - Smt. Ruby Verma W/o Late Om Kumar Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o L I G - 50, Sector-2, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur Office At Sanchar Vikas Bhavan (B S N L Building) Near Head Post Office Residency Road, Jabalpur - 482001 Madhya Pradesh 2 - Bank Of Baroda (Earlier Known As Vijaya Bank), E-V B, Devendra Nagar, Pandri Branch, Raipur 492001 Through Its Authorized Officer 3 - Smt. Munita Singh W/o Shri Hemant Singh Aged Adult, Flat No. 202, Building No. 5, Ashok Ratan Complex, V I P Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492007 4 - Shri Hemant Singh S/o Late Shri Ramswaroop Singh Aged Adult, Flat No. 202, Building No. 5, Ashok Ratan Complex, V I P Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492007 5 - M/s Five Elements Yog Centre Panch Bhutas Plot No. 3, Capital Homes, Phase-2, Saddu, Behind Ambuja Mall, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492007 Through Its Proprietress --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate For Respondents No.2 : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate through VC with Mr. Varun Varun Vats Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 19/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.22 10:34:16 +0530 2 “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur to dispose the Securitization Application No.482/2021 (Smt. Munita Singh & Ors. Vs. Bank of Baroda & Anrs.) in a time bound manner taking note of the statutory mandate under Section 17 (5) of the SARFAESI Act and act accordingly without further delay. 10.2 Consequently the court/tribunal below be further directed to conducting day-to-day hearing of the case, in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of case. 10.3 Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that application U/s. 17 (5) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (In short ‘the Act of 2002’) is filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur by respondent No.3 and others in November, 2021, however, since then matter is pending and it could not be disposed of whereas under the provisions of the Act of 2002, the DRT has to dispose of the application filed before it within period of 60 days from the date of such application, therefore, a direction be issued to DRT to decide the Securitization Application No.482/2021 in time bound manner. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner also perused the documents placed on record. 4. Perusal of documents enclosed along with writ petition in particular the order sheet of the DRT would show that case is already listed for final hearing and on the date of hearing, it did not reach. Further the application filed by petitioner for early hearing of the case filed on 3 behalf of petitioner/respondent No.2 therein would show that petitioner has not assigned any specific reasons that due to pendency of the case, petitioner is suffering monetary or financial loss but has only mentioned that petitioner/respondent No.2 is unable to enjoy the fruits of the immovable property purchased by her. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to that application for early hearing submitted in the month of March, 2025, the case was listed in final hearing list. 6. Considering the aforementioned facts of the case, the case is already listed in final hearing on application for early hearing submitted by petitioner/respondent No.2 therein and the case could not be reached on the date fixed, petitioner would be at liberty to make request before presiding officer of DRT, Jabalpur for hearing of the case out of turn on the date when the case is listed for final hearing. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that Bench of DRT, Jabalpur is vacant and only urgent matters are being taken up by DRT, Allahabad. 8. Petitioner has not submitted application for early hearing before DRT, Allahabad, in the above facts of the case, petitioner would be at liberty to make an application and mention before DRT, Allahabad for early hearing of the case. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram