The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed IIFL Housing Finance Limited to immediately unlock a borrower's residential property and restore possession to him after finding that he was left without an effective legal remedy due to a vacancy in the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur.
A Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed that a litigant should not suffer because the statutory forum established to hear his case is temporarily non-functional.
Background
The appeal was filed by Vinod Dwivedi, who had obtained a housing loan of ₹13,61,902 from IIFL Housing Finance Limited in April 2017. His transport business suffered during the COVID-19 lockdown, resulting in difficulties in repaying the loan. He also faced substantial medical expenses following his wife's cancer diagnosis and his own heart attack.
The Bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and subsequently took possession of his residential property. Dwivedi approached the High Court and deposited ₹1,16,000 in compliance with its earlier directions. However, his interim relief application before the DRT remained unheard because the Tribunal had no Presiding Officer.
The High Court noted that the appellant had complied with the earlier deposit directions, but his application could not be considered for reasons beyond his control.
The Bench observed:
"A litigant cannot be made to suffer merely because the Forum created by law is temporarily vacant."
The Court further held that the Single Judge had failed to properly consider the practical difficulties faced by the appellant, including the exceptional medical circumstances involving his family.
Considering these circumstances, the Bench observed:
"Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant deserves protection till the final order is passed by the Tribunal."
The High Court directed the Bank to immediately open the lock and hand over possession of the residential premises to Dwivedi. However, he was required to submit a written undertaking within three working days.
The Court clarified that if the Tribunal declined interim protection, the High Court's protection would automatically stand vacated, requiring him to return vacant possession to the Bank without delay.
The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order dated August 17, 2026, allowed the appeal and directed the DRT to decide the pending interim applications in accordance with law once it becomes functional.
Case Details
Case Title: Vinod Dwivedi v. Principal Secretary and Others
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 3218 of 2026
Judges: Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai
Decision Date: October 7, 2026
