The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered a housing finance company to unlock a borrower’s home because the Debt Recovery Tribunal lacks presiding officer cover at Jabalpur, holding: “A litigant cannot be made to suffer merely because the Forum created by law is temporarily vacant.”
Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has told a lender to open the lock on a borrower’s house and restore possession, because his securitisation application under the SARFAESI Act could not be heard while the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur has no presiding officer. A Division Bench allowed his writ appeal, directing that possession be restored on his written undertaking [Vinod Dwivedi v. Principal Secretary & Ors.].
The order of October 7, 2026 comes from a Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, with Justice Jai Kumar Pillai authoring the judgment.
Relief tied to an undertaking
Setting aside the Single Judge’s order of August 17, 2026, the Court directed the lender to open the lock immediately and hand over possession, provided the appellant files a written undertaking in the Registry within three working days. The undertaking must say that if the tribunal declines interim relief, the protection will stand vacated and he will return vacant possession without delay.
“It is made clear that this order shall not be taken as a precedent in other matters. It is being passed strictly because it is an exceptional case.”
The DRT is to hear and decide the pending interim applications in accordance with law as soon as it becomes functional, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.
A housing loan, a locked door and a vacant tribunal
The appellant, Vinod Dwivedi, who runs a transport business, took a housing loan of Rs 13,61,902 from IIFL Housing Finance Limited on April 17, 2017. He paid instalments regularly until 2020, when, according to him, the Covid-19 lockdown hit his business. He also told the Court of personal emergencies: his wife died on February 22, 2024 after cancer treatment, and he himself suffered a heart attack in October 2024.
The lender began SARFAESI proceedings, and on December 16, 2025 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore passed an ex parte order directing possession. The appellant says he never received the demand notice. On April 28, 2026, while he was away for his daughter’s wedding, the lender locked his residence.
In an earlier writ petition (W.P. No. 18463 of 2026), the High Court on May 15, 2026 directed him to deposit ten per cent of the dues and asked the DRT, Jabalpur to hear his interim application without coercive action meanwhile. He deposited Rs 1,16,000 and filed S.A. No. 599 of 2026, but the matter was not heard on several dates because the post of presiding officer was vacant. His second writ petition (W.P. No. 32763 of 2026) was dismissed by a Single Judge on August 17, 2026, leading to the appeal.
Competing submissions
Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Anil Kumar Namdev argued that the possession order was obtained without proper notice or hearing, that the outstanding instalments were only Rs 2,60,712, and that the appellant was ready to settle the account. With the tribunal non-functional, he said, the appellant was left without any remedy and deprived of his only residence.
For the lender, Advocate Rohit Saboo defended the Single Judge’s order, submitting that demand notices were sent by registered post, that the procedure under the SARFAESI Act was followed, and that the lender had a legal right to recover public money by auctioning the mortgaged property. Government Advocate Amit Bhatia appeared for the State.
Where the Single Judge went wrong
The Bench noted that the appellant had deposited the amount ordered, and that his interim application remained pending “without any fault of the appellant”:
“A litigant cannot be made to suffer merely because the Forum created by law is temporarily vacant.”
The Single Judge, the Court held, erred in dismissing the petition without weighing the practical difficulty the appellant faced. He “was rendered completely helpless due to the non-availability of the Presiding Officer”, the Bench observed, and his family’s medical history was not given due weight when equitable relief was declined.
Why the order matters
High Courts usually decline writ petitions in SARFAESI matters because the Act provides an efficacious remedy before the DRT. This ruling recognises the gap that opens when that remedy exists only on paper: a borrower who has complied with court directions and approached the tribunal cannot be left without protection because the tribunal has no presiding officer.
The Court was careful to keep the relief narrow. It is tied to an undertaking, ends automatically if the DRT refuses interim relief, and is expressly not a precedent. The case also adds to the concern over vacancies in Debt Recovery Tribunals, which leave borrowers and lenders alike waiting for a forum to decide their disputes.
Case Title: Vinod Dwivedi v. Principal Secretary & Ors. [Writ Appeal No. 3218 of 2026]
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:28903
Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore
Date of Order: October 7, 2026
For Appellant: Advocate Anil Kumar Namdev
For State: Government Advocate Amit Bhatia
For Respondent No. 4: Advocate Rohit Saboo
