- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34209 WP No. 18207 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 18207 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SYED KHALEEL PASHA, S/O. SYED KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2. SMT. SHANAZ, W/O. SYED KHALEEL PASHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 804, 10TH CROSS, JANATHA COLONY, MARALURU DINNE, TUMAKURU -572104. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.M.DAYANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, NO.5, JBA TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, BESIDED VINAYAKA HOSPITAL, SHIVAKUMAR SWAMIJI CIRCLE, TUMAKURU-572102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.C.AVINASH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34209 WP No. 18207 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.S.M.Dayanand Patil., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.B.C.Avinash., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Issue a Writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus quash/ set aside the Annexure-A order dated:26.03.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, in Crl.Misc.No.220/2024 under the provisions of the Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by restraining the respondent from interfere in any manner with petitioner peaceful occupation, possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. (b) Any other order/s direction/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including an order has to the cost of this petition in the interest of justice. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34209 WP No. 18207 of 2025 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. Suffice it to note that the respondent Bank had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.220/2024 and the Court vide order dated:26.03.2025 had allowed the petition. The order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT. The litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis. It is significant to note that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. When a right or liability is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226. The law is also well settled that a petition under Article 226 should not be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34209 WP No. 18207 of 2025 entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation. Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS that the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act and exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of the Banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection. Hence, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Because of dismissal the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50