The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory, not appellate; it can't correct mere errors by subordinate courts unless there is a serious dereliction of duty or failure of justice.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 10^th day of December 2025)

Petitioners filed S.A.No.481 of 2024 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam against the recovery measures initiated against the property belonging to them. In the said S.A., I.A. Nos.3135 of 2025 and 3134 of 2025 were filed. I.A.No.3135 of 2025 was filed with a prayer to stay all further proceedings including confirmation of sale, issuance of sale certificate and registration of sale certificate pursuant to Anex.A21 sale notice. I.A.No.3134 of 2025 is an application filed to amend the S.A. by incorporating certain facts, grounds and reliefs.

2. The DRT took up I.A.No.3135 of 2025 and dismissed the same as per Ext.P1 dated 18.8.2025. Earlier, the petitioners filed I.A.No.564 of 2025 in the said S.A. to depute an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the potential nature of the mortgaged property and to prepare valuation report with the help of an approved valuer and to submit a report with the comparability of both the lands with the property covered by Ext.P18 and secured assets. The Tribunal dismissed the said application by Ext.P2 order dated 24.3.2025. Both Ext.Nos.P1 and P2 orders are impugned in this O.P. (DRT).

3. The counsel appearing for the respondent bank opposed the prayers in the O.P. on the ground of entertainability of the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the question of entertainability is heard as a preliminary issue.

4. The counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Liza P. Cherian submitted that there is a procedural lapse from the part of the Tribunal in passing Ext.Nos.P1 and P2 orders. According to the petitioners, Annex.A21 (Ext.P13 herein), is the sale notice dated 28.7.2025 for sale of the property on 19.8.2025. It was produced with supporting grounds and reliefs in I.A.No.3134 of 2025. I.A. No.3135 of 2025 is filed for stay of the sale of property scheduled on 19.8.2025. When an application is filed for amending the S.A. by producing the sale notice, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the petitioners to amend it and then consider the stay application. This is because the sale notice is annexed to the amendment application and, unless and until the amendment is allowed, it does not become a part of the record. The sale notice is challenged in the S.A., because the property which is sought to be sold is in the prime locality and with a residential building of 2100 sq. ft. and office building of 1200 sq.ft. which is not separately valued and shown by the approved valuer. Ext.P2 was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have not produced any evidence or not pointed out in the affidavit as to what is the marketable or saleable price of the property. The counsel submitted that Ext.P19 sale deed is produced in the S.A. to show that similar land that of the secured asset was sold for a land value of ₹18,60,000/- per cent. The comparability and the valuation of the secured asset in relation to Ext.P19 is highly essential for determining the reserved price of the property which is sought to be sold. Since the Tribunal failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it, interference is warranted with Ext.P6 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Though a remedy by way of an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is available to the petitioners, both the orders; Ext.Nos.P1 and P2 are perverse and passed without exercising the jurisdiction vested with it, occasioning failure of justice. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, Ext.Nos.P1 and P2 are to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration after considering I.A.No.3134 of 2025. The counsel for the petiti