Writ petition dismissed directing petitioner to pursue remedy in pending appellate tribunal against DRT order.

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to forthwith restore and reinstate physical possession of the residential property bearing Survey Nos.678A/6 and 678A/7, situated at Chettinaickenpatti Village, Dindigul District, to the petitioner, in light of the final order dated 29.10.2025 passed in S.A.No.207 of 2021 and connected S.A.No.18 of 2017, and consequently direct the respondents to ensure peaceful restoration of possession.

2.It is the contention of the petitioner that he asserts lawful ownership over the subject property, which was mortgaged with the second respondent Bank for a housing loan. Upon alleged default, the Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and effected sale of the property in favour of the fourth respondent/auction purchaser. Challenging the said action, the petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, which, by order dated 29.10.2025 in S.A. No. 207 of 2021, set aside the sale proceedings as illegal. Despite the said order having attained finality, possession has not been restored to the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing restoration of possession in terms of the Tribunal’s order.

3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent Bank submitted that, as against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, an appeal has been preferred by the Bank before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in R.A.(S.A.) No.2525 of 2025, and the matter has been adjourned to 05.05.2026, wherein the writ petitioner has also entered appearance.

4.In such view of the matter, it is open to the writ petitioner to work out his remedy before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, especially when the appeal has already been taken on file.