O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant is a borrower within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002¹. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the secured creditor-respondent no.1² to enforce the secured interest owing to default on the part of the former to clear the debt. An auction sale of the secured asset was conducted. Respondent no.2 has emerged as the successful auction purchaser. He has deposited in excess of Rupees three crore with the respondent no.1 and the sale certificate, reportedly, has also been issued.

3. Appellant challenged the auction by filing an application³S.A. No. 542 of 2025 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1 at Ernakulam, DRT. In such application, the appellant filed an interim application⁵I.A. No. 3112 of 2025 seeking stay of confirmation and implementation of the sale.

DJD1R A 7 i a e g : Tt a5 i e tI s2 aN: o :1 2 l 2 lD 1n y 06: Es 2 R I i 6 S g . n T K0 e 3Ad .U1 b 6Ry P S u A n R j F a A b E N S a I t A io c n t al Bank

4. While the interim application remained pending before the DRT, the respondent no.1 asserted that it had taken physical possession of the secured asset on 27th May, 2024 pursuant to proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It was also asserted that thereafter, it issued a notice dated 22nd October, 2025 calling upon the appellant to remove the movables from the secured asset so that vacant possession could be delivered to the auction purchaser.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, High Court, seeking a direction to the DRT to consider the pending interim application. However, by the impugned order dated 6th November, 2025, the High Court has disposed of the writ petition with directions to the appellant to remove the movables and hand over possession of the secured asset to the respondent no.1 within ten days.

6. Crestfallen by such directions, the appellant has challenged such order in this appeal primarily on the ground that he has been worse-off for filing a writ petition. Now that the High Court has directed handing over possession of the secured asset to the respondent no.1, on the writ petition of the appellant, his interim application has been rendered infructuous for all intents and purposes.

7. We agree with the appellant that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court having been invoked with a limited prayer for a direction on the DRT to consider and dispose of the interim application, the High Court clearly erred in directing the appellant to vacate and deliver possession of the secured asset to the respondent no.1. This direction, if complied, would practically mean dispossession of the appellant without even having his interim application considered by the DRT. The impugned order is, thus, unsustainable in law.

8. We are informed by learned counsel for the appellant that the DRT has fixed 26th May, 2026 as the date for hearing of the interim application.

9. In view of our interim order dated 17th November, 2025, the appellant has been protected by grant of stay of operation of the notice requiring him to remove the movables from the secured asset and delivering possession.

10. Having regard to the aforesaid state of affairs, we set aside the order of the High Court and direct the DRT to consider the interim application of the appellant in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible but positively by the end of 30th April, 2026.

11. Parties are requested to cooperate with the DRT. They will appear before the DRT on 23rd March, 2026. No further notice need be issued to them.

12. The interim order passed by us on 17th November, 2025 shall continue till 30th April, 2026 or until further orders are passed by the DRT to the contrary, whichever is earlier.

13. Upon the DRT disposing of the interim application, one way or the other, the parties shal