1 CGHC010345732026 2026:CGHC:39341 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4563 of 2026 1 - Virendra Chandravanshi S/o Shri Suraaj Chandravanshi Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Gandai Kalan Tehsil- Bodla District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, 2 - Nirendra Chandravanshi S/o Shri Suraaj Chandravanshi Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Gandai Kalan Tehsil- Bodla District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioners versus 1 - Bank of India Through Its Authorised Officer Having Its Office At, Zonal Office, Star House, 1st Floor, Plot No. 48, Sector- 24, New Raipur- 492101, (C.G.) 2 - The Collector and District Magistrate, Raipur, Raipur(Chhattisgarh) 3 -The Tehsildar, Gobra Nawapara, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 4 - Maal Jamadaar, Office of Tehsildar, Bodla, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) 5 - Mr. Sunil Singh Rajput, S/o Shri Ram Singh Rajput House No. 16, Maruti Ward, Near Khedapati Hanuman Mandir, Kawardha, Kabirdham- 491995, (C.G.) 6 - M/s Maa Banjari Gud Udyog, Through Its Proprietor Shri Narendra PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.09.09 10:34:04 +0530 2 Chandravanshi, Having Office At, Village- Gandai Kalan, Tehsil-Bodla, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For State/Respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the propriety, legality and validity of the impugned order dated 27.08.2026 whereby Respondent No.4 has been directed to take physical possession of the property of the petitioners on 08.09.2026 and hand over the same to Respondent No.1 herein. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned memo dated 27.08.2026 issued by the Respondent No.3, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, against the order dated 17.01.2025, a securitisation application has been filed before the concerned DRT on 02.08.2026, which is pending for consideration. He 3 further submits that an application for urgent hearing of the matter has also been moved, which is to be considered tomorrow by the concerned Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. As such, some interim protection may be granted in favour of the petitioners so that the possession, which is to be taken pursuant to the possession warrant already issued and for which the date has been fixed for today itself, may be deferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/Bank of India submits that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. He further submits that the order was passed way back on 17.01.2025; however, the petitioners have not approached the concerned DRT in a timely manner for obtaining the relief which they are seeking in the present petition. As such, no leniency may be shown in favour of the petitioners. He further submits that the present petition is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the fact that though the petitioners have filed a securitisation application before the concerned DRT, all such issues are required to be adjudicated by the concerned DRT and not by this Court. Since the petitioners have approached this Court with the limited prayer that the possession, which is to be taken today itself, may be directed to be taken only after passing of an order by the concerned DRT, this Court, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view that some time may be 4 granted to the petitioners so that they may effectively argue their case before the concerned DRT. Further, the DRT, Jabalpur is not functioning properly till date, as the Presiding Officer has not been appointed. This apart, till date, the Central Government has not taken any initiative to appoint a regular Presiding Officer in the DRT, Jabalpur, and the cases of the DRT, Jabalpur are being taken up before the DRT, Ahmedabad. As such, ten days’ time is granted to the petitioners to obtain an order of stay from the concerned DRT. Till the expiry of the aforesaid period of ten days, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners by the concerned authorities. 7. It is further made clear that this order is being passed in exceptional circumstances and shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Prakash