ORDER

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners praying for the following reliefs:

"(i)To quash the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 12.03.2024 passed in S.A. No. 170/2024. (ii) To quash the notice u/S 13(2) Anneuxr P/2 dated 09.11.2021 as bad, illegal, improper, defective, unjust unwarranted.

(iii) To direct the DRT to hear SA/170/2024 and decide the same in accordance with law by giving reasonable opportunity.

(iv) To restrain the respondent as to take any coercive action against the petitioenrs of dispossession from secured asset.

(v) To direct the respondent to conduct fair market valuation of the secured asset as to ascertain current market price and accordingly balance loan amount can concluded.

(vi)Pass any other appropriate order as may be deemed fit, just and expedient in the interest of justice."

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners have filed Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002( referred to as "SARFAESI Act" hereinafter) against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Vide order dated 23.02.2024, S.A. No. 170/2024 was heard alongwith application for interim relief wherein by parte hearing took place and the case was reserved for order and till then, parties were directed to maintain status-quo. However, on 12.03.2024, the Presiding Officer, DRT heard the arguments of both the parties and had directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 15 lakhs in four installments of Rs. 3.75 lakhs each within an interval of 15 days each, failing which the order passed by the CJM, Indore shall be executed and matter is fixed for further hearing on 11.07.2024. The present petition is filed. 3 .

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners themselves have made an OTS proposal to the respondent in accordance to the current fair market price of the secured asset and availability of funds but the same has been denied. A revised OTS with higher amount has been proposed to the respondent, but there was no reply from them. Petitioners have all the intentions to repay the loan and therefore they themselves have proposed OTS twice. However, the Presiding Officer had directed to repay such a huge amount in a very short span of time with the further condition that in case they fail to pay the amount, the order passed by CJM shall be executed which will render the petitioner alongwith his other family members homeless as the secured asset is a dwelling house. Under such circumstances, the order passed in S.A. No. 170/2024 as well as the CJM u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act are erroneous. Hence, petition may be allowed and respondents be restrained from taking any coercive action of dispossession from the secured asset and to direct the DRT to decide the S.A. No. 170/2024 in accordance with law by giving reasonable opportunity.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

5. It is undisputed that the CJM, Indore had passed the order u/S 14 of SARFAESI Act on 04.01.2024. Thereafter, petitioner filed securitization application u/S 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT. Since, by the impugned order, DRT had directed the petitioners to repay the amount of loan in four equal installments within interval of 15 days each with the condition that if they fail to pay the installments, the order passed by CJM shall be given effect to, instant petition has been filed. It is apparent that this petition has been filed merely to safeguard their own interest by taking shelter from this Court and getting an order to restrain the CJM, Indore from executing the order passed u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act. If petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the DRT, they can very well file an appeal u/S 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRAT in p