##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7623

1 WP-2430-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 28 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 2430 of 2026

DILIP SHIVHARE

Versus

AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Avinash Zargar - Advocate for petitioner.

ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2023

passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, in Appeal No.

R-39/2019, whereby the appeal filed by the State Bank of India has been

dismissed, and the order dated 20.03.2019 passed by the Debt Recovery

Tribunal was affirmed.

2. The respondent/Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

Act, 2002 (in short, “the SARFAESI Act”) and sold the mortgaged property

through auction proceedings. The said auction was challenged by the

borrower before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Debt Recovery Tribunal,

in Securitisation Application No.17 of 2016, vide order dated 20.03.2019, set

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PRAVEEN

Signing time:

1/31/2026 1:12:57 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7623

2 WP-2430-2026

aside the auction sale dated 13.11.2015 and directed the Bank to restore the

possession mortgaged property to the borrower, with liberty to proceed

afresh for recovery of its dues in accordance with law. The said order was

challenged by the Bank before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in

Appeal No. R-39 of 2019. Vide order dated 02.12.2019, the appeal was

allowed, and the order dated 20.03.2019 was set aside.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2019, Misc. Petition No. 6658

of 2019 was filed before this Court by the borrowers, which came to be

allowed with a direction to decide the appeal afresh. Thereafter, the appeal

was again dismissed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal vide order

dated 12.08.2023, hence the order of learned DRT setting aside the auction

sale has been confirmed. Hence now the auction purchaser happy

anniversary come before this court by way of this petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The respondent/Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

Act, 2002 (in short, “the SARFAESI Act”) and sold the mortgaged property

through auction proceedings. The said auction was challenged by the

borrower before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In the first round of litigation,

the borrower remained unsuccessful before both the Debt Recovery Tribunal

and the Debt Appellate Recovery Tribunal. Thereafter, the borrower

approached this Court by filing Misc. Petition No. 6658 of 2019 and

remanded got the matter back to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal with

a direction to consider the approved plan of the property in question, as there

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PRAVEEN

Signing time:

1/31/2026 1:12:57 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7623

3 WP-2430-2026

was an allegation that the mortgaged property had been sold at a price lower

than its actual valuation. The petitioner, who was the auction purchaser, has

approached this Court by way of the present writ petition challenging the

order dated 12.08.2023 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

Prior thereto, the petitioner never challenged the order dated 20.03.2019

passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, by which the auction sale in his

favour was set aside. Although the petitioner has been contesting the appeal

before the Appellate Tribunal as well as the Miscellaneous Petition, but he

did not come forward as an aggrieved person insofar as the setting aside of

the auction sale was concerned. Even otherwise, the petitioner did not

challenge the order dated 04.02.2020, whereby the Miscellaneous Petition

was allowed, and the appeal was restored.

6. Though the Bank contested the matte