ORDER

Per: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai

The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant to challenge the order dated 17/08/2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 32763/2026. Through the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. The appellant has approached this Division Bench because his statutory remedy before the Tribunal is currently unavailable due to an administrative vacancy. This Court is called upon to decide whether the appellant is entitled to interim protection under these circumstances.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The appellant runs a transport business and had taken a housing loan of Rs. 13,61,902/- from IIFL Housing Finance Limited on 17/04/2017. He regularly paid the loan installments until the year 2020 due to the national lockdown imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic, his business suffered heavily, which caused a default in the payment of his regular loan installments. The appellant states that he informed the respondent Bank about his financial difficulties and tried to arrange funds to regularize his account.

3. The appellant also faced severe personal and medical emergencies during this period. His wife, late Smt. Ranjana Dwivedi, suffered from cancer and required expensive treatment, eventually passed away on 22/02/2024. The appellant himself suffered heart attack in October 2024 and he is still undergoing medical treatment. Because of the heavy medical expenses and the loss of income, the appellant was unable to maintain the regular repayment schedule for the housing loan despite his best efforts.

4. The respondent bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. An ex-parte order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore on 16/12/2025, directing the Bank to take possession of the residential property. The appellant claims he never received the demand notice. A notice to vacate was pasted on his house on 27/02/2026. Later, on 28/04/2026, while the appellant was out of station for his daughter's marriage, the Bank locked his residence, without giving him any opportunity to be heard.

5. Aggrieved by the sudden locking of his house, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court, registered as W.P. No. 18463/2026. This Court disposed of the petition on 15/05/2026, directing the appellant to deposit ten percent of the due amount. The Court also directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, to hear his application for interim relief without taking any coercive action in the meantime. In compliance, the appellant deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,16,000 in two installments with the respondent bank.

6. The appellant filed his case, registered as S.A. 599/2026, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. However, the post of the Presiding Officer at the Tribunal was vacant, and therefore, the case was not heard on multiple scheduled dates. Facing a continuous threat to his residence and lacking a functional Forum, the appellant filed another writ petition ie Writ Petition No. 32763/2026 seeking interim relief. The learned Single Judge dismissed this petition on 17/08/2026, which has led to the filing of the present Writ Appeal.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Bank obtained the eviction order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate without serving any proper legal notice. It is stated that the appellant was never given an opportunity of hearing, which is against the basic principles of natural justice. The counsel points out that the total outstanding installment amount is only Rs. 2,60,712 and the appellant is fully ready to settle the loan account with the respondent Bank.

8. The counsel further submits that the appellant is facing extreme hardship due to the tragic death of his wife from cancer and his own serious heart condition. It is argued that the appellant complied with the earlier directions of this