1 2026:CGHC:5701 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 427 of 2026 1 - Rafique Umrani S/o Mr. Abdul Gaffar Aged About 54 Years R/o Plot No. 26, Arjun Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. Permanent Address House No. 26 Meera Datar Building Samta Colony Chiroradhih Ward Raipur C.G. 2 - Parveen Umrani, W/o. Mr. Rafique Umrani, Aged about 47 years, R/o Plot No. 26, Arjun Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. Permanent Address House No. 26 Meera Datar Building Samta Colony Chiroradhih Ward Raipur C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - Sammaan Capital Limited (Previously Known As Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited) Through Rajesh Chauhan S/o S.P. Singh Chauhan, Aged About 50 Years, Working As Legal Manager Having Registered Address At 5th Floor , Building No. 27, K.G. Marg, Connaught Palace New Delhi- 110001. 2 - Sammaan Capital Limited (Previously Known As Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited) Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - Collector Cum District Magistrate, Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G. 4 - The Tahsildar, Tahsil Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents 3 & 4/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 02.02.2026 BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.02.04 11:19:48 +0530 2 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondent authorities/Bank to accept the offer of payment of entire loan amount and thereafter mortgage property of the petitioners be released. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondent no.4 not to dispossess the petitioners from property in question, till final disposal of petition or some time may be allowed to petitioners to obtain stay order from the DRT Jabalpur. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper as per the nature of the case. 10.4 An affidavit in support of this writ petition is filed herewith. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that secured property of the petitioners has already been taken possession by respondents No.1 & 2 and Securitization Application No.811/2025 (Annexure-P/4) is already pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, despite that respondents No.1 & 2 are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the secured property, hence, he prays that this petition may be admitted for hearing. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 submits that though notice has not been served to them, but vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2. He further submits that after order was passed by the competent authority under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’), possession of the 3 secured property was taken by respondents No.1 & 2. Thereafter sale notification was published on 30.5.2025, auction was conducted and sale certificate was issued to the auction purchaser, which has already been registered by him. Learned counsel further submits that since the aforesaid proceedings has already been concluded, therefore, right of redemption of the petitioner has been closed, hence, this petition may be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that in the proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, the writ Court ought not to have interfered in such proceedings, instead thereof, the aggrieved party may take recourse to law available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 6. Having considered the contention of learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and the observation made by the Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, hence, the same is dismissed. 7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini