[2026:RJ-JP:7751] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 82/2026 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1074/2022 S.R.G. Housing Finance Limited, Registered Office - 321, S.M. Lodha Complex, Shashtri Circle, Udaipur, (Rajasthan)-313001, Through Its Officer-In-Charge. ----Applicant/Petitioner Versus Uma Shankar Gupta S/o Shri Bhupendra Gupta, R/o House No. 5, Laxman Bhawan, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan) ----Non-Applicant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.A. Khan Ms. Rekha Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/02/2026 1. Matter comes upon misc. application No. 82/2026 seeking clarification of the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by this Court by which the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1074/2022 was disposed of with direction to the DRT to decide the application submitted by the respondent in accordance with law. 2. Counsel for the applicant submits that while passing the aforesaid order, two orders passed by the DRT dated 22.10.2021 and the successive order dated 10.01.2022 were quashed and set aside with direction to the DRT to decide the application on its merits but now the DRT is misinterpreting the aforesaid order [2026:RJ-JP:7751] (2 of 5) [WMAP-82/2026] passed by this Court and instead of deciding the Securitization Application submitted by the respondent, the DRT is bent upon to decide the interim application submitted by the respondent. Counsel submits that in fact no interim application is lying pending before the DRT rather the Securitization Application is still lying pending and the same is to be decided on its merit, hence slight clarification of the order dated 15.07.2025 is to be required. 3. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the applicant and submits that the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by this Court is clear and specific and no such direction has been issued by this Court to decide the Securitization Application submitted by the respondent rather a clear and specific order has been passed to decide the application submitted by the respondent, hence the order dated 22.01.2021 and the successive order dated 10.01.2022 have been quashed and set aside. Hence under these circumstances, no clarification is required by this Court and the present application is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1074/2022 submitted by the applicant-petitioner before this Court against the impugned orders dated 22.10.2021 and 10.01.2022 passed by the DRT and the said petition was disposed of by this Court with the following observations and directions in para Nos. 5 to 8 which reads as under:- “5. Perusal of the entire record indicates that when the outstanding amount was not repaid by the bor- [2026:RJ-JP:7751] (3 of 5) [WMAP-82/2026] rower- respondent, the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 were initiated against him by way of fil- ing an application before the District Magistrate and the said application was allowed vide order dated 28.01.2020 and the said order was assailed by the re- spondent before the DRT by way of filing an application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. This fact is not in dispute that when the amount was not repaid by the re- spondent, the petitioner- financial institution initiated the auction proceedings against the respondent and at this stage the interim application was submitted seeking appropriate directions against the petitioner- financial institution, which was decided by the DRT vide order dated 25.08.2021 with the following observations and directions :- “Heard arguments and perused the record. I am of the considered view, that the amount as shown in the impugned Auction Notice for Rs. 79,50,373/- against the outstanding amount of Rs. 27,70,000/- as on 27.09.2017 is really very high and if the Applicant is ready and willing to settle the account in terms of contents made in para 4 of this S.A, an opportunity can be granted to him. Accordingly, following order is passed- 1. A Demand Draft of Rs. 20,00,000/- be handed over to the Respondent F.I., today itself through their Ld. counsel or Authorized Officer. 2. Applicant will deposit an amount of Rs. 22,93,000/- (Rs. 1,43,000+Rs. 21,50,000/-) within 20 days from today against total outstanding amount. 3. Respondent F.I is directed to postpone the proposed auction and let the applicant to deposit amount as directed above, failing which, the Respondents will be at liberty to proceed ahead as per law.” 6. It appears that the respondent failed to comply with the directions issued by the DRT under the order dated 25.08.2021 within the time fixed therein and thereafter the matter was listed before the DRT on 22.10.2021. On which date the SA application sub- mitted by the respondent was disposed of on techni- cal count that a settlement has been proposed by the petitioner-financial institution in the matter. A bare perusal of the record indicates that no such settle- ment is available on record and the counsel for the [2026:RJ-JP:7751] (4 of 5) [WMAP-82/2026] respondent has also failed to produce the same be- fore this Court, hence by no stretch of imagination, it can be believed and relied that any settlement has ever been arrived at between the parties and in ab- sence of the said settlement between the parties, the matter ought not to have been decided on the facts by the DRT which were not available on record. 7. Hence this Court finds that instant case falls within the exception clause as carved out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent Edu- cational Society (Supra) wherein it has been held that in exceptional circumstances, a writ petition un- der Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be en- tertained in spite of availability of alternative remedy where the statutory authority has not acted in accor- dance with the provisions of the enactment. Here in this case also the DRT has not acted in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2001 and has passed the impugned order contrary to the record. 8. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of and the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 so also the successive order dated 10.01.2022 stands quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the DRT, for disposal of the ap- plication submitted by the respondent, strictly in ac- cordance with law.” 6. Perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 and the successive order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the DRT were quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted to the DRT for disposal of the application submitted by the respondent in accordance with law. Perusal of the entire record indicates that no interim application submitted by the respondent was lying pending before the DRT rather the Securitization Application submitted by the respondent was lying pending at the time of filing of the petition, hence under these circumstances, there was no reason or occasion available with the DRT to misinterpret the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by this Court and the aforesaid order stands clarified with directions to the DRT to decide the Securitization Application submitted by the [2026:RJ-JP:7751] (5 of 5) [WMAP-82/2026] respondent strictly in accordance with law expeditiously, as early as possible after providing due opportunity of hearing to both sides. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present misc. application stands disposed of. 8. It is made clear that at the time of passing of the impugned order, the Securitization Application was not pending as the same was decided in the light of the impugned orders. Since the impugned orders have been quashed and set aside, hence the Securitization Application stands revived automatically. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/103