SURINDER KUMAR SAGGU v. TRUE HOME FINANCE LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM HOUSING FINANCE LTD AND OTHERS
CWP/21180/2026 · 2026-07-15
Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, Sanjiv Berry
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 31184 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 31184 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CWP-21180-2026 (O&M) -1- 115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CWP-21180-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 Surinder Kumar Saggu .... Petitioner Versus True Home Finance Limited and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: Mr. Hanee Zad, Advocate for the petitioner. **** JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
, J. (ORAL) CM-11299-CWP-2026 Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. CWP-21180-2026
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction staying the operation, implementation and execution of impugned possession proceedings and the order dated 02.07.2026 (Annexure P-15/B) and restraining the respondent/Bank from taking forcible physical possession of the alleged secured asset for a period of 10 days so as to enable the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed an application before learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chandigarh challenging the action taken by the respondents under the SARFAESI Act. Before learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chandigarh, an application for stay of dispossession was filed on various grounds including that the notice was not served upon the petitioner by personal service. Learned Debts Recovery BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.17 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
CWP-21180-2026 (O&M) -2- Tribunal-III, Chandigarh initially granted a stay against dispossession, which was not subsequently extended. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for extension of the stay, which was dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 02.07.2026 (Annexure P-15/B).
3.
Learned counsel further submitted that although the petitioner intends to prefer an appeal against the aforesaid order before learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), which is the statutory remedy available to him, the operation of the impugned order dated 02.07.2026 (Annexure P- 15/B) may be stayed for a period of ten days to enable the petitioner to file the appeal on the ground that he is suffering from a medical condition and has been advised bed rest. In this regard, he referred to the medical document (Annexure P-1).
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. As per the relief sought by the petitioner, he seeks a ten-day stay of dispossession so as to enable him to file an appeal before learned DRAT. The order against which he is aggrieved, annexed as Annexure P-15/B, was passed on 02.07.2026. Ten days have already elapsed. Therefore, on the face of it, such a plea is not maintainable. Even otherwise also, an appeal can always be filed before learned DRAT and no such direction can be issued by this Court to restrain the bank by bypassing the aforesaid remedy of appeal. So far as the medical record attached by the petitioner as Annexure P-1, is concerned, which is issued by a private hospital, namely, Hunjan Hospital, a perusal of the first page would show that although the petitioner is alleged to have an infected TKR, but there is no previous surgical history recorded. On perusing another medical certificate dated 19.04.2026, which was also issued by the same private hospital, it is seen that bed rest was prescribed to the petitioner only until
12.07.2026. Thus, on the face of the medical record itself, the period of advised BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.17 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
CWP-21180-2026 (O&M) -3- bed rest has expired. Moreover, personal presence is not required for filing an appeal before the DRAT.
6. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE 15.07.2026 (SANJIV BERRY) Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.17 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh