1 2026:CGHC:2605 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2931 of 2025 • Mohit Kumar Sahu S/o Ramkumar Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Kapa, Police Station- Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd., Branch Office- Opposite Hi-Tech Hospital, Nehru Nagar West, G.E. Road, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Chandrika Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Vivek Misrha, PL. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 15.01.2026 2 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 for modification of order dated 05.02.2025 passed by this Court in CRMP No.465/2025 (Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd. Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Anr). Relevant portion of order dated 05.02.2025 reads as under: “9. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the fact that no direction was made with respect to the time frame in which the installment to be paid to the petitioner, this court directs the respondent no.2 to pay the remaining balance amount in 19 equal installments in 19 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is noteworthy that the possession of the said vehicle bearing registration no. CG 04 PA 0357 will be retained. 10. With the aforesaid direction the instant petition is disposed of.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present petition has been preferred seeking modification of the order dated 05.02.2025 passed in CRMP No. 465/2025, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the remaining balance amount in 19 equal installments in 19 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The petitioner had purchased a Bharat Benz Commercial Truck bearing Registration No. CG-04-PA-0357 after availing the financial assistance from respondent No.1/Finance Company under a loan agreement dated 22.11.2022, stipulating repayment through 3 monthly EMIs of Rs.1,09,350/- over a period of 59 months, with the final installment falling due on 20.10.2027. The petitioner had structured his financial obligations strictly in accordance with the said repayment schedule. Within two months of purchase, the vehicle met with an accident and remained non-operational for approximately nine months, thereby depriving the petitioner of his sole source of income. Subsequently, the vehicle was illegally seized by the officials of respondent No.1 on 21.12.2023 and was restored/returned to the petitioner only after intervention by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, vide order dated 15.10.2024. Resulting, the vehicle remained non-operational for a cumulative period of nearly 19 months, during which the petitioner, despite severe financial distress, managed to pay eight EMIs. Learned Counsel further contended that the petitioner was not served with notice in CRMP No. 465/2025 and, therefore, denied an opportunity of hearing. The impugned direction was thus passed without consideration of the petitioner’s financial incapacity and the extraordinary circumstances beyond his control. The direction to repay the entire outstanding loan amount within 19 months imposes an undue, harsh and impracticable burden upon the petitioner, who is a person of limited means and wholly dependent upon the said commercial vehicle for his livelihood. Such a direction defeats the very object of equitable relief and is liable to be modified to prevent miscarriage of justice. Hence, 4 petitioner prays for modification of Paragraph -9 of the order dated 05.02.2025, restore the original loan tenure and extend the date of the final installment from 20.10.2027 to 20.07.2029, in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/Finance Company as well as counsel for respondent No.2/State contended that order dated 05.02.2025 was passed by this Court after due consideration of the material available on record and was intended to grant the petitioner a concessionary and equitable relief by permitting repayment of the outstanding amount in 19 installments, despite the petitioner’s continued defaults. The said direction balances the equities between the parties and safeguards the legitimate financial interests of the respondent. The petitioner’s plea of financial incapacity is neither substantiated by any documentary evidence nor sufficient to warrant interference with a reasoned judicial order. The petitioner’s contention regarding non-service of notice is raised only to delay repayment. Extending the loan tenure till 20.07.2029, as prayed for by the petitioner, would cause serious prejudice and financial loss to respondent No.1/Finance Company and would defeat the very purpose of the order dated 05.02.2025, which was passed to ensure timely recovery of public money. Thus, present petition seeking modification of the order dated 05.02.2025 passed in CRMP No. 465/2025 is misconceived, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, in the interest of justice. 5 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the present petitioner including the order dated 05.02.2025 passed in CRMP No.465/2025. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon due consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had availed the financial assistance from respondent No.1 under the loan agreement dated 22.11.2022, agreeing to repay the loan amount in accordance with the stipulated EMI schedule. It is equally undisputed that the petitioner committed defaults in repayment of the loan. While the petitioner has sought modification of the order dated 05.02.2025 on the ground of financial hardship arising out of the accident of the vehicle and its subsequent seizure, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 05.02.2025 was passed after due application of mind and was intended to grant a concessionary and equitable relief to the petitioner by permitting repayment of the outstanding dues in 19 monthly installments, notwithstanding the petitioner’s defaults. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to place on record any cogent material to substantiate his claim of financial incapacity warranting further indulgence by this Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for modification of the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by this Court in CRMP No. 465/2025. 6 8. The present petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-