The District Magistrate can correct typographical errors in orders under the SARFAESI Act without that being a review; appeals must be filed under Section 18 if available.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Devesh Srivastava and Sri Gautam Sadana, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manu Dixit, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 - HDFC Bank Ltd. and perused the records.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners have stated that they have erroneously impleaded the DRT as opposite party no.1 to the petition. On their oral request they are permitted to strike out the name of Tribunal from the array of opposite parties in the memo of petition forthwith.

3. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 10.11.2025, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’) in Securitisation Application No.936 of 2024, whereby the DRT has rejected the contention of the petitioner about illegality of an order dated 28.06.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow in Case No.1414 of 2025, under Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act) correcting a typographical error in the previous order dated 08.05.2025 regarding the date of possession notice.

4. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has raised a preliminary objection that the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the DRT is not maintainable in view of availability of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank has relied upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Varimadugu Obi Reddy Vs. B. Sreenivasulu and others , (2023) 2 SCC 168 , PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and others , (2024) 6 SCC 579 and Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. (2023) 1 SCC 662 .

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and others , (2010) 9 SCC 496 .

6. In Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu , (2023) 2 SCC 168 the securitisation application had been dismissed by the DRT, the dismissal order was not challenged and it became final. After taking possession of the mortgaged property, the Bank issued a notice to the borrowers calling upon them to repay the outstanding amount and thereafter it issued e-auction sale notice dated 25.02.2015 fixing the date of auction of the scheduled property on 28.03.2015. That borrowers challenged the e-auction sale notice before the DRT. The DRT passed an interim order dated 26.03.2015, directing the Bank to proceed with the auction-sale of the secured asset with a further direction not to issue the sale certificate provided the borrowers deposit Rs 6 lakhs within 15 days from the date of the said order, i.e., by 09.04.2015. It was made clear that in the event of the respondent borrowers fail to deposit the said amount, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to issue the sale certificate in favour of the highest bidder. The borrowers failed to deposit Rs 6 lakhs by 09.04.2015 and they filed an application on 09.04.2015 seeking extension of further 15 days’ time from 10.04