The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set held that a litigant cannot be made to suffer merely because the Debt Recovery Tribunal is temporarily vacant due to vacancy of the post of Presiding Officer. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 455]

The Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed;

"In the present case, the Tribunal has done nothing, and the application for interim relief remains pending without any fault of the appellant. A litigant cannot be made to suffer merely because the Forum created by law is temporarily vacant".

An intra-court appeal was filed challenging the Single Judge's order dismissing the appellant's petition. The appellant approached the Division Bench because his statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal was unavailable due to an administrative vacancy.

Per the facts, the appellant, who operates a transport business, had taken a house loan of ₹13,61,902 from IIFL Housing Finance Ltd. He regularly paid the loan instalments in 2020. Due to the national lockdown imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, his business suffered, and he defaulted on payment of regular loan instalments.

He further argued that he informed the Bank and tried to arrange funds to regularise his account, and that he also faced several medical emergencies. The appellant's wife suffered from cancer and required expensive treatment and eventually passed away in February, 2024.

The appellant himself suffered a heart attack in October 2024 and was undergoing medical treatment.

The Bank thereafter initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. An ex parte order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate directing the Bank to take possession of the residential property. The appellant claimed that he never received a demand notice and only received a notice to vacate. Later, while the appellant was away for his daughter's wedding, the Bank locked his residence without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition before this court, which was disposed of with directions to the appellant to deposit 10% of the due amount. The court also directed the Tribunal to hear his application for interim relief without taking coercive action in the meantime. In complaince, the appellant submitted a sum of ₹1,16,000 in two installments.

The appellant filed his case before the Tribunal, but since the Presiding Officer post was vacant at the Tribunal, the case was not heard on multiple scheduled dates. Facing continuous threats, the appellant filed a writ petition, but the same was dismissed by a Single Judge.

The court noted that the appellant had deposited the required amount of ₹1,16,000 with the Bank. However, when the appellant approached the Tribunal, the matter could not be taken up because the post of Presiding Officer was vacant.

Examining the Single Judge Order, the court noted that the Single Judge committed an error by dismissing the writ petition "without considering the severe practical difficulty faced by the appellant". The Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was left remediless due to the non-availability of the Presiding Officer.

Accordingly, the bench set aside the impugned order and directed the Bank to immediately open the appellant's locked residence and hand over possession to him. The court directed;

"The appeal is allowed in the above said terms. The Debt Recovery Tribunal is expected to hear and decide the pending interim applications, strictly, in accordance with law, as soon as it becomes functional, without being influenced by any observations made in this order".

For Appellant: Advocate Anil Kumar Namdev

For State: Government Advocate Amit Bhatia

For Respondent Bank: Advocate Rohit Saboo