A petitioner must pursue statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction concerning property repossession under SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2026)

The petitioner is the owner of the property which was mortgaged as security for a loan of ₹1,00,00,000/- availed from the respondent Bank in the year 2023 for a period of four years. The secured assets comprised 9.41 cents of land with a residential building having an extent of 2600 sq. ft., along with an additional extent of 1.25 cents of land.

2. Upon default in repayment of the instalments, the respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take physical possession of the secured assets.

3. At that stage, the petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A. No. 434 of 2024 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It is admitted by the petitioner that physical possession of the secured assets was taken on 23.01.2026.

4. The relief sought in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondent Bank to permit the petitioner to clear the defaulted amount in instalments and to restore possession of the secured assets to the petitioner and his family.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank has produced an order passed in I.A. No. 3777 of 2025 in S.A. No. 434 of 2024 dated 28.10.2025, wherein the Debt Recovery Tribunal granted an interim order deferring the taking of physical possession, subject to the condition that the petitioner remits a sum of ₹7,20,249/- on or before 28.11.2025, and similar sums on

26.12.2025 and 28.01.2026.

6. When the petitioner has already invoked the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the measures taken by the Bank, it is not open for the petitioner to simultaneously invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking instalment facility and restoration of possession. The petitioner must prosecute the remedy already availed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. If the petitioner had not complied with the condition in the order dated 28.10.2025, it will be open to the petitioner to move an application for extension of time for payment also.

Leaving open the petitioner’s right to prosecute S.A. No. 434 of

2024 before the Tribunal, this writ petition stands closed.

Sd/-