A writ of Mandamus is inappropriate when the case is pending before a lower court handling relevant proceedings.

Petition is for issuance of direction to the Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset with police assistance.

2. We find that in the matter of challenge to the order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, an order was initially passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal granting conditional stay in favour of the borrower. Later on, it appears that on 10.10.2025, the Debts Recovery Tribunal passed an order recording that the condition, on which the interim order was granted, has not been complied with.

3. On petitioner's own showing, order dated 10.10.2025 has now been placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate have been listed on

14.11.2025 for passing appropriate orders.

4. When the proceedings are pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the case is now to be taken up on 14.11.2025, pursuant to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 10.10.2025, we do not think the writ Court is required to issue any direction at this stage. Petitioner may pursue its application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the next date of hearing.

5. Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.