[2026:RJ-JD:12304]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5717/2026 JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company, Through Its Authorised Officer_Cum Signatory Yaspal Singh S/o Uttam Singh Rawat Aged About 35 Years, Having Its Registered Office At Mumbai And One Among Branch Office 1St Floor Mahadev Tower Plot 47, Opp New Kohinoor Cinema Chopasani Road, Jodhpur (342001).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of Home, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

3. The Station House Officer, Ps_Osian, Jodhpur.

4. Mul Singh, R/o Gado Ka Bas Tapoo, Jodhpur Rajasthan (342312)

5. Gulabi Kanwar, R/o Tapoo Tehsil_Bawarri, Jodhpur Rajasthan (342312)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Choudhary For Respondent(s) : --

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

16/03/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

“In the light of facts stated and grounds advanced, it is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that and while allowing the same the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to;

A. Issue an appropriate Writ for directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to forthwith restore and hand over possession of the secured asset to JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company, without any delay."; and/or B. Issue an appropriate Writ or order to declare that the Respondent nos. 4 & 5 have violated the mandate of SARFAESI Act, 2002 thereby and unlawfully forcefully divesting/dispossessing the Petitioner from secured asset.;

and/or C. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent no. 2 and 3 to consider the Complaint dated-02.02.2026 (Annex-5) preferred by Petitioner and register an FIR against the respondent borrowers, who have illegally dispossessed the Petitioner from the Secured asset and has tried to overreach the law as well as the orders passed by judicial authorities, which has to be nipped in the bud right away, lest the rule of law shall suffer; and/or D. By an appropriate writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) impose the cost against the respondent borrowers as well as state instrumentalities for inaction and the said cost may be directed to be given to the petitioner- Bank;

and/or E. Any other order which this Court may deem fit and appropriate in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience may also be passed on in favour of the humble Petitioner.”

3. Mr. Himanshu Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Financial Asset Reconstruction Company and it had granted loan in favour of the respondent No.4 – Mul Singh - borrower and respondent No.5 – Gulabi Kanwar - co-borrower. Since, the loan amount was not repaid by the respondents No.4 & 5, therefore, it was declared as NPA and proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interests Act, 2002 (for short, Act of 2002’) were undertaken by the petitioner Bank. In pursuance of the proceedings undertaken by the petitioner under the Act of 2002, possession of the mortgaged property was taken over by the petitioner Bank. After the petitioner had taken over the possession, the respondents No.4 & 5 broke the locks of the property and forcibly entered into it. In the circumstances, the petitioner being a Financial Asset Reconstruction Company approached the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur and SHO, Police Station Osian, District Jodhpur for restoring the possession of the mortgaged property to it but till date, no action has been taken by them.

4. It is also contended that despite ample opportunities having been granted to the respondents Nos. 4 and 5, the amount due to the petitioner has not been paid till date and further, in defiance of rule of law, the respondent Nos.4 & 5 have also forcibly taken over possession of the mortgaged property. Learned counsel in these circumstances s