1 2026:CGHC:23224 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2521 of 2026 1 - Someshwar Prasad Singh S/o Shri Kameshwar Prasad Singh R/o Plot No. 16/17, Block No.17, Dakshin Gangotri, Supela, Bhilai District -Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Bank Of India (Sbi) Through Its Authorized Officer Stressed Assets Recovery Branch -(100009) Block B-1 Pujari Chamber, Near Pachpedi Naka Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Judicial Magistrate District And Sessions Court Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Magistrate And Collector District -Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - The Additional Tehsildar, Bhilai Nagar Tehsil And District -Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Hritvik Dixit, Advocate For State :- Mrs. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 15.05.2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking appropriate directions against respondent No. 1/Bank to restrain it from dispossessing the petitioner from the residential property in question. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, against the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur by filing Securitisation Application No. 398/2026, which is presently pending consideration before the learned DRT. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also filed an application for grant of interim stay, which is yet to be considered by the Tribunal. It is, however, submitted that since the DRT is presently not functional/fully constituted, the petitioner is left without any effective remedy for urgent protection of his possession. It is contended that in absence of interim protection, the order for taking possession of the property in question is likely to be executed, which would render the pending securitisation application infructuous and 3 cause irreparable loss to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may grant interim protection by staying the operation of the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act till the matter is considered by the competent Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the outstanding dues of the petitioner are approximately Rs. 91,32,080/- as on date. It is further submitted that even if this Hon’ble Court is inclined to grant any interim protection on the ground that the DRT is presently not functional, appropriate safeguards may be imposed by directing the petitioner to deposit at least 30% of the outstanding amount within a stipulated time, as a condition for grant of any interim relief, so as to balance the equities between the parties. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the petitioner shall deposit 30% of the outstanding amount within a period of one month from today. The effect and operation of the order dated 13.04.2026 shall remain stayed subject to the aforesaid condition. It is further directed that in the event the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the stipulated period, the interim protection granted by 4 this Court shall automatically stand vacated and the order shall revive and take its full effect. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/Bank submits that since the interim order passed by this Court is virtually in the nature of final relief and the matter is already seized by the concerned DRT in the pending securitisation application, the present petition itself may be disposed of by directing the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount within one month. It is further submitted that till the application for interim stay filed along with the securitisation application is considered and decided by the learned DRT, the interim protection granted by this Court may be continued and the respondent-Bank may be directed not to proceed further pursuant to the impugned action, subject to compliance of the condition regarding deposit of the amount. 6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, which appear to be reasonable, it is directed that the petitioner shall deposit 30% of the amount in question within a period of one month from today. The execution of the order dated 13.04.2026 shall remain stayed till the learned DRT passes an appropriate order on the application filed by the petitioner. 5 7. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. 8. The learned State counsel is directed to inform the concerned Additional Tehsildar forthwith about the passing of this order. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha