1 2026:CGHC:24312-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 504 of 2026 1 - Om Prakash Dongre S/o Kripa Ram Dongre, Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 2 Malidih, Bodrabhata, Mahasamund, District -Mahasamund (C.G.) Other Address Property Situated At Part Of Khasra No. (Old 528/11) New 537, P.H. No.7 , Situated At Village -Malidih, P.S. Tumgaon, District -Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Pushpa Dongre W/o Om Prakash Dongre Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No.2, Malidih, Bodrabhantha, P.S. Tumgaon, District -Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Kripa Ram Dongre S/o Madhu Dongre Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No.2, Malidih, Bodrabhantha, P.S. Tumgaon, District -Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Awas Financers Limited Through Authorized State Head Amandeep Singh Saudh S/o Gyan Singh Saudh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Deep Kunj Akasha Apartment, Khamtarai, Khamtarai -2, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Naib Tahsildar, Up- Tahsil, Tumgaon, District -Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : None For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17/06/2026 1 Heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant(s) as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 2. 2 Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 02.06.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No. 2752/2026 by which the petition filed for quashing of auction notice dated 07.05.2026 for bidding and auction of the mortgaged property was rejected. 3 The appellants pray that till the decision of the appeal filed under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (for short, the Act of 2002) is decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal), the impugned auction notice dated 07.05.2026 may be set aside. 4 The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellants are that the appellants had availed a loan of Rs. 6,30,000/- from the respondent No. 1 on 11.07.2022 for running business and an agreement to this effect was executed between the parties on 11.07.2022. While availing loan, the appellants mortgaged the property bearing Khasra No. (Old 528/11) New Khasra No. 537, situated at Village-Malidih, P.H.No. 7, P.S.-Tumgaon, District-Mahasamund (C.G.). The appellants have repaid the approximate amount of Rs. 1,75,000/-, but as the appellants have incurred loss in business, therefore the balance amount could not be paid. Due to non-payment of remaining loan amount, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 before the 3 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund. Vide an ex-parte order dated 06.11.2024, the learned C.J.M., Mahasamund allowed the said application. After coming to knowledge of order dated 06.11.2024 the appellants preferred an application for setting-aside the ex-parte order dated 06.11.2024 which was also rejected vide order dated 15.04.2025 by the learned CJM, Mahasamund. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2024, the appellants preferred an appeal under Section 17(2) of the Act of 2002 before the learned Tribunal at Jabalpur, being Securitization Appeal No. 318/2026. 5 Mr. Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants submit that since the learned Tribunal at Jabalpur is not functioning, therefore the appeal filed by the appellants is lying unheard and the next date of hearing has been given for 24.07.2026. As such, the appellants preferred a petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh bearing Writ Petition No. 15307/2026 and vide order dated 05.05.2026 the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the appellants to make an offer under Section 13(8) of Act of 2002 to respondent No. 1. Accordingly the appellants through the counsel, have sent proposal/ offer to the respondent by notice dated 14.05.2026, whereby the appellants are agreeable to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month until full amount is satisfied. Disagreed with the offer of appellants, the respondent No. 1 has issued impugned auction notice dated 07.05.2026, whereby scheduled the mortgaged property for auction tomorrow i.e. on 18.06.2026. The respondent No. 2 has issued memo dated 23.02.2026 directing the concerned Revenue Inspector and Halka Patwari for providing physical possession of the mortgaged property to the respondent No. 1. 6 Mr. Rajput further submits that the appellants have already preferred an 4 appeal before the learned Tribunal but as the learned Tribunal at Jabalpur is not functioning, therefore the appeal of appellants is lying unheard and if the auction of mortgaged property would be done, then the purpose of filing of appeal would become infructuous. In similar circumstances, vide order dated 08.05.2026 in W.P.(C) No. 2305/2026, a learned Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court has granted interim protection restraining the Bank from taking possession of the property in dispute. Hence, this petition. 7 On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent No. 2 submits that the contesting party in this appeal is the respondent No. 1. Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the appellants to approach the Appellate Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. 8 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and materials available on record. 9 The order dated 08.05.2026 passed in WPC No. 2305/2026 in similar set of facts is of no assistance as the same was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court which cannot have any binding effect. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing WPC No. 2752/2026 has rightly observed that the appellants have already approached the learned Tribunal at Jabalpur and as such, there was no necessity to entertain the writ petition and had also granted liberty to the appellants to approach the concerned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. 10 The Hon’ble Apex Court Court has repeatedly emphasized that Courts should exercise restraint in interfering with recovery proceedings initiated by banks and financial institutions under special statutes enacted for expeditious recovery of public money. Entertaining challenges at every 5 intermediate stage would defeat the very object and purpose of the legislation. In the present case, no exceptional circumstance exists warranting departure from the aforesaid settled principle. 11 In the absence of any demonstrated illegality in the auction notice dated 07.05.2026, and considering that the appellants have already availed the statutory remedy available under the Act of 2002, we find no justification to grant the relief sought by the appellants. We do not find any infirmity or illegality with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and as such, this appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.06.17 19:34:34 +0530