JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is primarily to the order dated 28.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Panchkula whereby, the application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the 2002 Act') filed by the predecessor of respondent No.4 namely M/s. Religare Finvest Ltd. was allowed.

2. The ancillary prayers which are made are for restructuring of the loan accounts on the ground that the RBI Guidelines dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure P-20) provide a framework and the matter has to be referred to the designated committee. The consideration of the representation dated 25.09.2021 (Annexure P-15) is also sought.

3. The case has a checkered history and shows how the provisions of the 2002 Act which are meant to realize the amounts of the financial institutions can be stretched agonisingly for years by the litigant who firstly takes resort to the civil suit and thereafter jumps on the bandwagon of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and eventually now has to be relegated to the Tribunal, which was the initial remedy which should have been preferred at the first instance. For noticing the manner in which the proceedings have been extended and to dismiss the writ petition, necessarily the narration of the requisite facts duly summarized will have to be resorted to.

4. Notice under Section 13 (2) of the 2002 Act was issued to the petitioners on 19.08.2016 (Annexure P-3) by M/s. Religare Finvest Ltd., the loanee as such wherein they were put to notice that Rs.4,22,05,804.91/- was payable on 12.08.2016. The said notice was followed up by statutory notice dated 22.12.2016 under Section 13 (4) read with Rule 9 of the 2002 Act (Annexure R-4/1) wherein, the petitioners were put to notice that the mortgaged property which was H.No.37-P, Sector 4, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula, Haryana which is being run as a guest house for which the mortgage had been created. Possession was being taken over symbolically and there was a charge on the mortgaged property which was duly described.

5. It is not disputed that vide assignment deed dated 05.11.2019, the said loan as such was assigned in the favour of respondent No.4 namely India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. The District Magistrate, Panchkula, however, allowed the application on 28.11.2019 in favour of the original financial institution M/s. Religare Finvest Ltd. (Annexure P-1). The petitioner, on 11.03.2021, got registered himself under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (Annexure P-1/A) and on the very next day on 12.03.1921, filed a civil suit wherein, injunction was sought which is stated to be based on incorrect and wrong legal advise as per the pleadings in the writ petition. On 19.03.2021 (Annexure P-8), the Civil Court denied the injunction since application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC had been filed and came to the conclusion that the statement had been recorded of Rajinder Singh that he would deposit an amount of Rs.90,00,000/- in the loan account on 21.07.2017 before the District Magistrate. The appeal was dismissed on 05.05.2021 (Annexure P-9) by the Appellate Court. It is pertinent to mention that the suit was filed against the assigned company-respondent No.4 namely India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. also. The civil revision came to be filed i.e. C.R. No. 1227 of 2021, which came up before one of us while sitting in Single Bench, G.S. Sandhawalia, J. and keeping in view the fact that Covid-1