[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishal Chaudhary vs Srg Housing Finance Ltd. Through Its ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1470
1 WP-25424-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 25424 of 2024
VISHAL CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS
Versus
SRG HOUSING FINANCE LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
OFFICER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Harshita Ranawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Saboo, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Debt Recovery
Tribunal, Jabalpur (DRT) in Securitisation Application No.409/2024,
whereby the application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (in short 'the SARFAESI Act') has been dismissed on the ground of
delay as a consequence by rejecting the application for condonation of delay
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
02. Facts of the case reveal that the petitioners took financial
assistance of Rs.9,00,000/- from the respondent / financial institution and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1470
2 WP-25424-2024
same was sanctioned on 29.01.2019. In failure of payment of installment, on
01.07.2021, the respondent / financial institution issued a demand notice
under Sections 13(2) & 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act demanding
Rs.9,33,100/-.
03. Facts further reveal that on 08.03.2022, without serving the
notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, a possession notice was
issued and the same was published in the local newspaper on 13.03.2022.
Thereafter, the respondent / financial institution moved an application under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mandsaur, which came to be allowed vide order dated 16.10.2023 and the
same was communicated to the Tehsildar for handing over the possession of
the mortgaged property to respondent / financial institution.
04. On 22.12.2023, the respondent / financial institution initiated the
execution proceedings and came up with a possession notice which was
served to the petitioners.
05. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioners approached the
DRT by way of an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act along
with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which came to be
rejected vide order dated 01.07.2024 on the ground of limitation. Hence, the
present petition is before this Court.
06. Counsel for the petitioners argued that an ex parte order was
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandsaur under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act on 16.10.2023, though the petitioners have not received any
notice. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not been afforded
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1470
3 WP-25424-2024
opportunity to contest the case on merit. It is further argued that order was
not within the knowledge of the petitioners, therefore, the DRT has
erroneously dismissed the application for condonation of delay and not
condoned the delay of 40 days.
07. Counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned order and
submitted that the petitioners could not explain the delay as per the
requirement of law.
08. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the judgment passed the Apex Court in the case of R. Ellapa &
Others v/s Nanjappa & Others [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
No.24794 of 2023], in which the Apex Court has held that in the given case
and facts and circumstances, liberal attitude can be adopted by the Courts
while condoning the delay and also fact that the petitioners are the borrower
saddled with the financial responsibility of about Rs.25,00,000/-, we hereby
allow the writ petition and the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 is quashed.
The delay in filing the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is
condoned. The matter is remanded back to the competent authority and the
competent authority is directed to decide the case on merit expeditiously.
09. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition allowed & disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
