Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/4916/2026 of SHRI RAGHVENDRA DAS VAISHNAV Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, on 25 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41885 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4916 of 2026 1 - Shri Raghvendra Das Vaishnav S/o Late Shri N.D. Vaishnav Aged About 61 Years R/o A -1, Anushtha, Residency P H-1, Sector 1, Jeora Sirsa Junwani Road Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt, Hema Das
CGHC010375822026
2026:CGHC:41885
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4916 of 2026
1 - Shri Raghvendra Das Vaishnav S/o Late Shri N.D. Vaishnav Aged About 61
Years R/o A-1, Anushtha, Residency P H-1, Sector 1, Jeora Sirsa Junwani Road Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
2 - Smt, Hema Das Vaishnav W/o Shri Raghvendra Das Aged About 51 Years R/o A-1, Anushtha Residency P. H. -1, Sector 1, Jeora Sirsa Junwani Road Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioners
versus
1 - Punjab National Bank, Through Its Authorized Officer Civic Center Branch, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Collector, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Tehsildar Tehsil Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.
4 - Yuvraj Singh S/o Shri Ramveer Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o MIG 2/429, Hudco Amdi Nagar Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioners
:
Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/Bank
:
Mr. Anumeh Shrivatava, Advocate
For State
:
Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice
Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
26/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioners, in this Writ Petition, have prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the form of Mandamus / prohibition restraining Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3, their agents, officers, and subordinates from taking any coercive measures, including taking physical possession of the residential property situated at Khasra No. 66/81, Ward No. 1, Anustha Residency, Junwani, Bhilai, District Durg, pursuant to any proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the form of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 3 (The Tehsildar, Durg) to keep all execution/possession proceedings in abeyance till the application is decided by the Ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal; 10.3 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the petitioner safeguarding their interest.”
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners availed a housing loan of Rs. 26.00 Lakhs, which was subsequently regularized upon deposit of Rs. 4.90 Lakhs. Despite the settlement, Respondent No. 1-Bank issued a fresh auction notice dated 22.05.2026. The DRAT, Allahabad, vide order dated 13.07.2026, directed the DRT to decide the interim application within 10 days and directed the parties to maintain status quo. However, due to the non-availability of the Regular Bench at DRT, Jabalpur, the matter was adjourned to 18.03.2027. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1-Bank executed a registered Sale Deed dated 19.08.2026 in favour of the auction purchaser despite the said order. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to argue the interim application, however, the DRAT-2, Ahmadabad, has declined to take up the same on the ground that the stipulated period has already expired.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the petitioners have neither filed any application seeking urgent hearing nor apprised the concerned DRAT, Allahabad, regarding the appropriate sale intimation. He further submits that, as the petitioners did not file any application for urgent hearing, perhaps this was the reason that the DRAT has declined to take up the interim application filed by the petitioners.
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and particularly, the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are directed to approach the DRAT-2, Ahmadabad by filing an appropriate application for urgent hearing along with relevant materials to show the exigency for hearing the matter urgently, within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the respondent/Bank is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners for a period of 15 days, so that the interim application of the petitioners may be decided before the DRAT-2, Ahmadabad.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Priyanka