NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 563 of 2026 1 - Smt. Basanti Devi W/o Late Sukhai Prasad Gupta Aged About 71 Years Resident Of Royal Service Center Road Besides Rishabh Bazar Canal Road Krishna Nagar Post- Tikrapara District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Tarani Prasad Gupta S/o Late Sukhai Prasad Gupta Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Royal Service Center Road Besides Rishabh Bazar Canal Road Krishna Nagar Post Tikrapara District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Samman Capital Ltd. Registered Office At 5th Floor Building No 27 K.G. Marg Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 2 - Nand Kishore Agrawal S/o Radheshyam Agrawal Resident Of Spersweel Chhotapara Kotwali Ps Road Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Shri BL Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : None appears ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 08.05.2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner with following reliefs: “(i) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal Jabalpur District Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh to decide pending case Securitization application (SA) No.362/2026 within time framed, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioners.” Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.05.09 11:29:41 +0530 Wp227 562 of 2026 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has filed Securitization Application (SA)-362 of 2026 before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, District-Jabalpur, MP (for short, ‘DRT’), however, there is no proceeding drawn there and therefore, the learned Tribunal may be directed to decide the case as early as possible within any stipulated time frame. He would also submit that petitioners are suffering from changing the very nature of the suit property by the respondent. Therefore, the direction of early disposal of the proceeding before the DRT is required. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents with the petition. 5. It transpires from the order-sheets of the DRT annexed at Page-9 that SA-362 of 2026 was received by the DRT on 05.02.2026 and thereafter, after due scrutinization, the case was posted for hearing on 02.04.2026 and notices were ordered to be issued to the non-applicants. On 13.04.2026 learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the DRT made an application for urgent hearing and on that request, case was fixed for 17.04.2026 but thereafter, what transpires before the DRT had not been disclosed by the petitioner. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has filed his SA-362 of 2026 on 05.02.2026 and vide order dated 02.04.2026 notices were ordered to be issued and also that the case was fixed for urgent haring of the case on 17.04.2026. However, the petitioner could not demonstrate about the proceeding of 17.04.2026 and not inclined to pass any direction to the DRT, as claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 7. Accordingly, present writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma