ORDER

Paul, J. -- 1. Heard on the preliminary objection of territorial jurisdiction/maintainability raised by the registry. The registry has raised objection because petitioner belongs to Chhattisgarh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that orders under challenge are dated 3.3.2023 (Annexure P/2) passed by Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur which got stamp of approval in Chamber Appeal by learned Presiding Officer by order dated 9.3.2023 (Annexure P/4). Both the orders were passed by competent officers of DRT, Jabalpur which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Principle Seat of this Court, thus the office objection deserves to be overruled.

3. We find substance in the said argument in the light of Clause-2 of Article 226 of the Constitution which envisages that even if a minuscule part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of this Bench, petition can be entertained. Thus, Office objection is overruled.

4. Since impugned orders are passed without putting the other side to notice, we do not find any reason to put the other side to notice and deem it proper to hear Shri Shukla finally.

5. Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 6.3.2023, learned Registrar of DRT declined to register his application preferred under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act and under the relevant Rules of 2002.

6. A plain reading of order dated 3.3.2023 (Annexure P/2) makes it clear that the singular reason for non-registration of application is that there exists no document on record indicating that the secured creditor has taken action under section 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act. Since registration was declined, the petitioner availed the remedy of Chamber Appeal as per rule 5(5) of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. The chamber hearing was given to the petitioner and learned Presiding Officer by impugned order dated 9.3.2023 held that an application under section 17(1) can be entertained provided the secured creditor has taken some action under section 13(4) of the Act. The finding of learned Presiding Officer is that although in the pleadings, the appellant/petitioner stated that secured creditor has repossessed the hypotheticated vehicle but for this purpose, no documentary evidence was filed. Thus, the application was not tenable.

7. Criticizing the said finding, Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when no documents were given while taking possession of the vehicle, the expectation of Tribunal that some documents should have been filed is without any basis. There was no reason to disbelieve the pleadings. Neither the SARFAESI Act nor the Rules make it obligatory to file any such document to substantiate the case. The reliance is placed on section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act which makes it clear that any person aggrieved by any of the measure referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by secured creditor may approach the Tribunal. What is important, submits Shri Shukla is whether measure has been taken or not. section 17(1) nowhere talks about existence of any documentary evidence for that purpose.

8. To elaborate, Shri Shukla placed reliance o n section 13(4)(a) SARFAESI Act , which reads as under :--

“Section 13(4) in The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (4) In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period speciÂfied in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the followÂing measures to recover his secured debt, namely :

(a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset;” (Emphasis supplied)

9. It is submitted that once it is pleaded that possession has been taken without any documents, there was no impediments