1 CGHC010215392026 2026:CGHC:31826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2775 of 2026 1 - Rajesh Ahuja S/o Shri Ramesh Ahuja Aged About 45 Years Occupation- Business R/o B-80, Near Ssd Square, Kavita Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)- 492001 2 - Ramesh Ahuja S/o Shri Peshumal Ahuja Aged About 73 Years Occupation- Business R/o B-80, Near Ssd Square, Kavita Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)- 492001 3 - Vikas Ahuja S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Ahuja Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Business R/o B-80, Near Ssd Square, Kavita Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)- 492001 4 - Sushila Ahuja W/o Ramesh Ahuja Aged About 70 Years Occupation- Home Maker R/o B-80, Near SSD Square, Kavita Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)- 492001 5 - Priya Ahuja W/o Vikas Kumar Ahuja Aged About 49 Years Occupation- Home Maker R/o B-80, Near Ssd Square, Kavita Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)- 492001 6 - Somya Ahuja W/o Rajesh Ahuja Aged About 43 Years Occupation- Home Maker, R/o B-80, Near Ssd Square, Kavita Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)- 492001 ... Petitioners versus 1 - Punjab National Bank Through Its Authorized Officer Anupam Nagar Branch, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Cum District Magistrate Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Tehsildar Tehsil Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.25 11:40:40 +0530 2 4 - Debts Recovery Tribunal Through Its Registrar 2nd And 3rd Floor, Sanchar Vikas Bhavan (Bsnl Building), Near Head Post Office Residency Road, Jabalpur- 482001, M.P. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 24.07.2026 1. Though the present petition has been listed along with the bunch of matters, the leading case being WPC No. 2799 of 2026, having regard to the distinct factual matrix involved in the present case, it is directed that this petition be de-linked from WPC No. 2799 of 2026. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this matter is heard finally. 3. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioners call in question the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents in seeking to take forcible physical possession of the petitioners' residential property pursuant to the possession notice dated 20.11.2025, received by the petitioners on 23.05.2026, despite the pendency of S.A. No. 1078/2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioners further seek quashment of the impugned action pursuant to the said possession notice and a direction to the 3 respondents to maintain status quo and refrain from taking forcible possession of the residential property during the pendency of the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, particularly when the petitioners have complied with the interim order passed by the learned Tribunal and the post of the Presiding Officer, DRT, Jabalpur is presently lying vacant, rendering the petitioners remediless for seeking urgent protection. The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs :- “10.1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned action of the respondents pursuant to possession notice dated 20.11.2025 (P-11), received by the petitioners on 23.05.2026, whereby the respondents are seeking to take forcible possession of the petitioners' residential property on 08.06.2026; 10.2. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents, their officers, servants and agents from taking forcible physical possession of the petitioners' residential property bearing House No. MIG B- 80, P.H. No. 113, Kavita Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Maharishi Valmiki Ward No. 28(5), Mouza Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.), during pendency of S.A. No.1078/2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal; 10.3. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to maintain status quo with respect to possession of the 4 aforesaid property till the adjudication of S.A. No.1078/2025 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal; 10.4. Any other relief deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10.5. Cost of the Petition.” 4. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the present writ petition, as framed and filed, has become infructuous inasmuch as the possession/recovery notice dated 20.11.2025, pursuant to which the petitioners apprehended forcible dispossession, has already been withdrawn by the respondents. In view thereof, it is contended that no cause of action survives for adjudication of the present writ petition. 5. In light of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not wish to press the present writ petition at this stage. However, he prays that liberty be reserved in favour of the petitioners to avail such remedy as may be available in law, including by filing a fresh petition, if the occasion so arises in future. 6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty, as prayed for, is reserved in favour of the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law, if the occasion so arises. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh