` 129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Purnima Debts Recovery Tribunal I CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA 1. This petition has been mentioned for being taken up out of turn on account of urgency pleaded in the matter. 2. Reliance is placed upon Annexure P /1 to submit that the revenue authorities propose to take possession of the property in question on 04.05.2026. The petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of delay on 29.04.2026. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been given sufficient time to challenge the order of the circumstances, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. 4. None else has entered appearance on behalf of res IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13614 Date of Decision: Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal IIi Chandigarh & Ors. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Mr. Puru Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate *** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) This petition has been mentioned for being taken up out of turn on account of urgency pleaded in the matter. Reliance is placed upon Annexure P /1 to submit that the revenue authorities propose to take possession of the property in question on . The petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of delay on 29.04.2026. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been given sufficient time to challenge the order of the DRT and in such exceptional circumstances, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. None else has entered appearance on behalf of res IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 13614-2026 (O&M) ate of Decision: 01.05.2026 …Petitioner & Ors. …Respondents ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA ROHIT KAPOOR Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. This petition has been mentioned for being taken up out of turn Reliance is placed upon Annexure P /1 to submit that the revenue authorities propose to take possession of the property in question on . The petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of delay on 29.04.2026. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been given sufficient DRT and in such exceptional circumstances, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the None else has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. This petition has been mentioned for being taken up out of turn Reliance is placed upon Annexure P /1 to submit that the revenue authorities propose to take possession of the property in question on . The petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of delay on 29.04.2026. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been given sufficient DRT and in such exceptional circumstances, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the RAJESH KUMAR 2026.05.01 16:10 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-13614-2026 (O&M) [2] 5. Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed, we do not deem it necessary to issue notice to respondent No.2 or to keep the present writ petition pending. This is for the simple reason that against the order dated 29.04.2026, passed by the DRT, the petitioner has the remedy of filing an appeal before the DRAT. In view the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors.(2010) 8 SCC 110, interference in such matters would otherwise not be warranted. However, a reasonable time will have to be given to the petitioner to pursue the legal remedies available to her in accordance with law. 6. In such circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner may pursue the alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRAT and press the application for stay therein. For a period of two weeks from today, status quo with regard to possession shall be maintained and shall abide by the appropriate orders which are to be passed by the DRAT in the appeal, if any, presented by the petitioner. We make it clear that we have not adjudicated on the merits of the petitioner’s claim and the limited interference is only to facilitate the petitioner for pursuing her legal remedies. 7. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 01.05.2026 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.05.01 16:10 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.