( 2026:HHC:3281 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1127 of 2026 Decided on: 9th January, 2026 State Bank of India .......Petitioner versus District Magistrate Sirmour and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuing directions to the respondents to hand over physical possession of secured assets i.e. Khata Khatoni No.15min/16min, Khasra No.312/12, measuring 02-11-00 bighas along with built up structure, property situated at Mauza Up Sampada Jagela, Hadbast No.49/1, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P. to the authorized officer of the bank in accordance with law and in terms of provisions of the Securitization and 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2026:HHC:3281 ) 2 Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) by the petitioner-bank. 2. It is the case of the counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of the securitization proceedings notice under Section 13(2) has been issued on 27.02.2025 (Annexure P-5), to recover the outstanding amount of Rs.7,49,88,052/- as on 27.02.2025. The necessary possession notice was issued on 02.07.2025 (Annexure P-6). In pursuance of the same, they had initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate, Sirmour, who passed the order dated 25.09.2025, taking into consideration the above facts. 3. It is now submitted that the District Magistrate has not implemented the said order on account of stay granted in Regular Second Appeal No.347 of 2014 dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure P-11), whereby the status quo qua nature and possession of the suit land has been ordered. The District Magistrate has further rejected the request of the bank vide letter dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P-10) and suggested that the bank should approach the High Court and secondly; the order passed on 26.07.2024 was prior to the ( 2026:HHC:3281 ) 3 order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on 25.09.2025 and, therefore, the contention of the bank that it was not a party in the RSA, has also been rejected. 4. We are of the considered opinion that the stand of the District Magistrate as such cannot be faulted in any manner, since the petitioner has been given liberty to approach this Court and to file appropriate application in the said Regular Second Appeal and it is not that the remedy as such of the petitioner-bank has been shut to take possession of the mortgaged property. 5. In such circumstances, we do not deem it fit to entertain the present petition as it would only further prolong the issue and it would be more appropriate for the bank to approach the learned Single Judge by filing an appropriate application for the necessary clarification. 6. Resultantly, we dispose of the writ petition with the aforesaid liberty. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) January 09, 2026 Judge (naveen)