HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 38404 of 2026 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.V. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank of India. 2. We have perused the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur holding Additional Charge of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad in S.A. No. 32 of 2025. 3. We are dismayed to find a very insensitive approach disclosed by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank there and may be a little lack of appropriate response by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal. 4. We think that the Presiding Officer also should have been more careful in the matter where possession is about to be lost. In S.A. No. 32 of 2025, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has passed an order noting that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs and a complete calculation of his outstanding shall be furnished by an interim order of the said date i.e. 25.08.2026. The D.R.T. directed that the Bank will not confirm the sale. 5. A perusal of the order dated 31.08.2026 shows that the Bank has already sold the property and the petitioner is facing dispossession. 6. The S.D.M., Sadar, Mathura has addressed a Memo dated 29.08.2026 to the Incharge P.S. Kotwali, District-Mathura indicating that possession of the property be delivered to the Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on 23.09.2026, if in the meantime no stay order from a Court of competent jurisdiction is produced. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., R.V. Pandey Sakir .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 7. This brings us back to the order dated 31.08.2026 passed by the Tribunal which was done two days after the S.D.M.'s Memo issued to the In-charge, Police Station Kotwali District-Mathura directing delivery of possession to the Bank. The order shows that the learned counsel for the Bank made a statement that there is no urgency involved in the matter since the property has been sold. He conveniently held back from the Tribunal that the petitioner is facing dispossession in a case where confirmation of sale is already stayed by the Tribunal. 8. We also notice that the Tribunal taking note of the Bank's stand and rather accepting it for its word has fixed a date as far flung as 09.12.2026, and that too before the Registrar for completion of pleadings; not before the Court. It is these facts put together that made us express our anguish in the earlier part of this order about the insensitive approach on part of more than one of the functionaries involved. 9. Though, the matter is pending on the Tribunal's Board and we ought not interfere by taking it on our Board and adjudicating the matter, but since the petitioner is in peril of losing his house and shelter which is a matter that extends to impinging upon the petitioner's right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. We have to make up for the Tribunal's lapse and come to the petitioner's aid may be marginally. We, therefore direct the petitioner to make an application before the Tribunal seeking relief against his impending dispossession from his house, the property in dispute. 11. The Tribunal shall advance the dates after notice to the other side, fixing it as early as possible, according to the availability of the Presiding Officer, but certainly not in December or November. The date on which the application is taken up, appropriate orders shall be made by the Tribunal with regard to protection of the petitioner's possession that he seeks. In case the petitioner makes an application within a week before the Tribunal seeking an injunction against his dispossession, till such application is heard by the Tribunal and appropriate orders made, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property in dispute. 12. Immediately, upon the Tribunal making orders on the petitioner's application, this order would automatically come to an end. WRIC No. 38404 of 2026 2 13. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the rights of parties on merits. 14. The petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders. 15. Let this order be communicated to the District Magistrate, Mathura, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mathura and the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Mathura through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura by the Registrar (Compliance). September 23, 2026 Shweta WRIC No. 38404 of 2026 3 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.) Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad