1 2026:CGHC:22140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 548 of 2026 1 - Dhananjay Kumar Son Of Shri Kushal Sahu, Aged About 36 Years Plot No. 106/9, Pitiyajhar Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, Ward No. 12, P.C. No. 53, Tehsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Dimple Sahu, Wife Of Shri Dhananjay Sahu Aged About 30 Years Plot No. 106/9, Pitiyajhar Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, Ward No. 12, P.C. No. 53, Tehsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri Sanjay Sahu Son Of Kushal Sahu Aged About 32 Years Plot No. 106/9, Pitiyajhar Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, Ward No. 12, P.C. No. 53, Tehsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Idfc First Bank Limited (By Shri Sandesh Jain) Permanent Address K.R.M./tower, 7th Floor, Har Higtan Road Chetpet Chennai Branch Address - First Floor Civil Line Governor Office Side Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakhan Lal, Advocate 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. Heard. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund in MJC No.160/2025 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed to take physical possession of the subject property. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the order. The petitioners are still in the possession of the subject property. They came to know about the order when they have issued a notice for vacating the subject house issued by the Tehsildar. He would further submit that the petitioners are in extreme hardship if the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate would be executed, and therefore, before passing of the order, the petitioner should have been heard, the order impugned is passed without following the due procedure of law, and therefore, the same is liable to be setaside. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. Except the order dated 29.07.2025, no any other documents have been filed by the petitioner in support of the petition. It transpires from the order impugned that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 6. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act provides that :- 14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset — (1) Where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured assets, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him— (a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and (b) forward such asset and documents to the secured creditor: Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured creditor, declaring that— (i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing the application; (ii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such properties and the claim of the Bank or Financial Institution is within the limitation period; (iii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties giving the details of properties referred to in sub- clause (ii)above; 4 (iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment of the financial assistance granted aggregating the specified amount; (v) consequent upon such default in repayment of the financial assistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a non-performing asset; (vi) affirming that the period of sixty days notice as required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13, demanding payment of the defaulted financial assistance has been served on the borrower; (vii) the objection or representation in reply to the notice received from the borrower has been considered by the secured creditor and reasons for non-acceptance of such objection or representation had been communicated to the borrower; (viii) the borrower has not made any repayment of the financial assistance in spite of the above notice and the Authorised Officer is, therefore, entitled to take possession of the secured assets under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 13 read with section 14 of the principal Act; (ix) that the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder had been complied with: Provided further that on receipt of the affidavit from the Authorised Officer, the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall after satisfying the contents of the affidavit pass suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets1[within a period of thirty days from the date of application]: Provided also that if no order is passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within the said period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass the order within such further period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty days. Provided also that the requirement of filing affidavit stated in the first proviso shall not apply to proceeding pending before any District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, on the date of commencement of this Act. (1A) The District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to him,— (i) to take possession of such assets and documents relating thereto; and (ii) to forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.] 5 (2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary. (3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate 1[any officer authorised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate] done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority. 7. The petitioner fails to demonstrate any palpable infirmity, jurisdictional error or perversity in the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasumnd, which warrant interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sumit