[2025:RJ-JP:17692] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3705/2025 Kailash Khandal Son of Shri Krishan, Aged About 44 Years, Resident of 221Brahmanu Ka Mohalla Ward No. 1, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. District Magistrate And District Collector Jaipur, Collectorate Banipark Circle Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Edelwiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., Building No. E-3 Jhandewala Estate, Rani Jhashi Road, Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sharma Ms. Neha JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaipur by which the review petition submitted by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 06.12.2022 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the award an execution application was submitted by the erstwhile secured creditor against the petitioner before the Court of Additional District and Session Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan but the same was withdrawn, thereafter, the respondent submitted an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’) [2025:RJ-JP:17692] (2 of 3) [CW-3705/2025] before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the same was also withdrawn without seeking any liberty to file fresh. Counsel submits that suppressing and concealing the above fact, a successive application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was submitted for getting possession from the petitioner. Counsel submits that the said application submitted by the respondent No. 2was allowed on 06.12.2022 and on the basis of the same, the respondents were bent upon to take forcefully possession of the premises of the petitioner. Counsel submits that immediately after receipt of the notice/information/knowledge of the order dated 06.12.2022, a review petition was submitted before the Court of District Magistrate, however, the same was rejected on a technical count on 21.01.2025 to the effect that the District Magistrate has no power of review. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the main borrower, he is only a co-borrower of the mortgaged property. 3. Per-contra, counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the order impugned dated 06.12.2022 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is appealable under Section 17 of the DRT Act, 1993 but without availing the alternative statutory remedy of filing the appeal, the petitioner has straightway approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society V/s. UCO Bank and Ors.(Civil Appeal No.4845/2024) has categorically [2025:RJ-JP:17692] (3 of 3) [CW-3705/2025] held that the High Court would not entertain such petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if any alternative remedy is available with an aggrieved person under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the present writ petition is liable to be rejected on this count alone. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court is not going into the controversy involved in this matter, that whether successive applications with regard to the same prayer were maintainable or not before the District Magistrate by way of filing an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2001, but at the end of the matter, an order has been passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act or DRT Act and the same is appealable under Section 17 before the DRT, hence the petitioner cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the statutory authority. He can take all these objections before the DRT by way of filing an appeal and request the authority concerned for redressal of his grievance but in any case, this Court would not entertain a petition like the present one in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational (Supra). 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed on this count alone, along with the liberty aforesaid. 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/198