1 2026:CGHC:4809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 26 of 2026 1 - M/s. Mahamaya Vaccine Through Proprietor, Phanindra Mishra, S/o Late Mool Chand Mishra, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Vidya Upnagar, Diprapara, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Jyoti Mishra W/o Phanindra Mishra Aged About 47 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Vidya Upnagar, Diprapara, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G. 3 - Syama Devi Mishra W/o Late Mool Chand Mishra Aged About 85 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Vidya Upnagar, Diprapara, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Collector-Cum - District Magistrate Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G. 3 - The Tehsildar Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G. 5 - The Sub Divisional Magistrate Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G. 6 - Bank Of India Through Authorised Officer, Shri Suraj Kumar, S/o Shri Kamlesh Prasad, Aged About 40 Years, Office At- Arb, Bank Of India, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishab Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA. For Respondent/Bank : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate. For Proposed Intervenor : Mr. Nishant Bhanushali, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking review/recall of the order dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5041/2025 (Bank of India versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors). Relevant portion of order Annexure P-1 reads as under: “9. Considering facts of the case, above submission of counsel for the parties, particularly the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and the period prescribed therein, the writ petition at this stage is disposed o f with a direction to respondents No.2 to 5 to comply with the order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) and conclude the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 after giving proper opportunity of hearing to respondents No.6 to 8, expeditiously, preferably within a period of ‘60 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that order dated 23.01.2025 has already challenged by the petitioners herein (respondent Nos.6 to 7 in writ petition) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in 3 Second Appeal No.204/2025 (Annexure P-2) and appeal is still pending for consideration. Pendency of such appeal/proceeding was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of writ petition (WPC No.5041/2025) by the counsel for the Bank on 24.09.2025, resulting direction for execution have been issued even though foundational order is under statutory challenge. Hence, it is prayed that order dated 24.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5041/2025 be reviewed/recalled. 3. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6/Bank submitted that pendency of said appeal/proceeding was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition on 24.09.2025, as the same had not been disclosed to him by his client-Bank. He further pointed out that he has drafted and filed the writ petition as per the instruction of his client/bank. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 5041/2025) including the order dated 24.09.2025. 5. On perusal of writ petition and order dated 24.09.2025, it reveals that respondent/Bank has suppressed the fact that order dated 23.01.2025 has already challenged by the petitioners herein before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the matter/second appeal is still pending before DRT. Without disclosing the said fact, writ petitioner (respondent No.6/Bank herein) has filed the writ petition before this Court and also obtained the above direction/order by 4 this Court on 24.09.2025. Thus, it is evident that material facts were not placed before this Court at the time of hearing of writ petition on 24.09.2025. However, counsel for the respondent-Bank contended that writ petition was drafted and filed on the basis of instructions received from his client/Bank. 6. It is pertinent to mention herein that two parallel proceedings, one before the DRT and second before this Court is not maintainable. 7. In view of above circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to review and recall the order dated 24.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5041/2025. 8. Consequently, the present review petition is allowed and the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5041/2025 stands recalled. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-