2026:HHC:42050 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 17134 of 2026 Decided on : 29.09.2026 Mohit Ranaot …Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Seema Kaushal Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral ) The challenge in the present petition is to the securitization proceedings including the Sale Certificate issued on 10.09.2026 (Annexure P-5), in favour of the private respondent No.4, who had purchased the property from the bank for Rs.15,39,000/-. 2. Apparently, the opportunity was given to the petitioner to clear the outstanding on 25.08.2026 (Annexure P-3) by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Security Application 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:42050 No. 319/2026. The sum of Rs.1.5 lac was the first installment and Rs.15.39 lacs had to be deposited before 08.09.2026 (Annexure P-3). 3. The matter had come up on 09.09.2026 (Annexure P-4) and the Debt Recovery Tribunal had recalled the interim protection given on the earlier date, whereby, the bank was directed not to confirm the auction till 08.09.2026, on account of the fact that the amount had not been deposited. The matter is still pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and has been fied for 06.10.2026. 4. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that since the petitioner had already availed the alternative remedy and become defaulter as such, by not depositing the amount to show his bona fide, it is always open to him to file an appropriate application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the said Securitization Application, which is already pending for the grant of necessary relief, since, now it is contended that it is his only residential house and the petitioner is willing to pay the outstanding amount. 5. Keeping in view the alternative statutory remedy available, which has already been availed, we are of the 3 2026:HHC:42050 considered opinion that opening up a parallel proceeding would not be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Resultantly, the present petition is disposed of, with the aforesaid liberty. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge September 29, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)