JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ. The present writ petition is filed, directing the respondent-Bank to de-seal the house/property of the petitioner and directing the respondent to reschedule the repayment of outstanding amount in installments. 2. Initially when the matter came up on 03.09.2024, an offer of Rs.10 lacs as such had been made, which had been accepted by the counsel for the respondent. Resultantly, the matter was disposed of on 05.09.2024, giving the petitioner right to bring a prospective buyer before 30.10.2024, which was subject to deposit of another Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs) as in the first instance, it had been directed on 03.09.2024 and by way of subsequent orders, an amount of Rs.20 lacs had been deposited. Vide said order, the Co- ordinate Bench had also directed that the residential portion of the petitioner shall be de-sealed and handed back to the petitioner while directing respondent-bank to supply the complete copy of statement of accounts to petitioner from the inception of loan. 3. CMP No.20619 of 2024 had been filed for modification of the said order by the petitioner and interim direction was given on 19.11.2024 to give the prospective buyer access to inspect the ground floor. Similarly, the said application thereafter was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to sell the ground floor as per agreement dated 10.12.2024 and receipt of the consideration amount of Rs.4 lacs to be immediately deposited before the concerned bank, which has been deposited with the bank at that point of time. The writ petition was however directed to be listed on 07.01.2025 and thereafter certain orders were passed. The Secretary, DLSA was directed to ensure that the access is given to the prospective buyer. A similar order was passed on 10.01.2025 regarding the accessibility of ground floor from within the building and from outside the building. A report was also received from Secretary, DLSA. 4 Also in the meantime, an application bearing CMP No. 5520 of 2025 was filed for impleading Amarjeet Kaur as party respondent on the ground that she had entered into an agreement to sell with proprietor of the petitioner’s wife-Manju Devi which was land and the house. 5. A report was also received from Secretary, DLSA. 4 Also in the meantime, an application bearing CMP No. 5520 of 2025 was filed for impleading Amarjeet Kaur as party respondent on the ground that she had entered into an agreement to sell with proprietor of the petitioner’s wife-Manju Devi which was land and the house. 5. We are of the considered opinion that this Writ petition is an abuse of process of the Court at the hands of the borrower, who is only trying to retain the possession without taking any positive steps to repay the amount. 6. Earlier CWP No.6776 of 2021 came to be filed by Smt. Manju Devi and Rajinder Singh proprietors of M/s A2Z Departmental Store and proprietor of M/s Blue Chip Computer Service. That time the writ petition was disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the respondent-Bank and rely on the Loan Moratorium Scheme promulgated by Reserve Bank of India dated 05.05.2021 and the status quo order was passed by this Court on 29.10.2021 which was to remain co-terminous with the decision to be taken by the respondent-Bank. 7 Apparently a demand notice dated 17.05.2021 has been issued under Section 13(2) which led to the possession notice dated 15.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) showing that an amount of Rs.27,27,286/- as payable on 17.05.2021 plus interest was due from the petitioner and the Bank then proceeded under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, which is clear from the notice dated 15.06.2024 (Annexure P-2) whereby, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to deposit the entire loan amount within 15 days, failing which the Bank will take the physical possession of the secured assets. 8. The petitioner then filed S.A No. 283 of 2024 before the DRT, Chandigarh, which was dismissed on 18.07.2024, wherein, also scathing remark as such came that initially Manju Devi had filed CMP(M) No.341 of 2023 in this Court against the order of the Registrar Cooperative Societies and the said order has been set aside on 16.06.2023. Resultantly, the said application was dismissed by noticing that the applicant has not challenged the SARFAESI action in the present S.A and the applicant is approaching different forums to sabotage the recovery by the Bank. The relevant portion of order dated 18.07.2024 reads as under :- “10. Bank has also produced on the record copy of order dated 09.07.2024. Resultantly, the said application was dismissed by noticing that the applicant has not challenged the SARFAESI action in the present S.A and the applicant is approaching different forums to sabotage the recovery by the Bank. The relevant portion of order dated 18.07.2024 reads as under :- “10. Bank has also produced on the record copy of order dated 09.07.2024. A look at the order dated 09.07.2024 would show that the Applicant had made abortive attempt before the Registrar Cooperative Societies to challenge the SARFAESI action. However, the Registrar Cooperative Societies declined their request. 11. I am of the considered view that Applicant has not challenged any SARFAESI action in the present SA and Applicant is approaching different forums to sabotage the recovery by the Bank. This is a frivolous SA, which has no merit. The same is hereby dismissed. All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly. Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.” 9. At the same point of time, the petitioner also filed CWP No.7116 of 2024, which was disposed of with liberty to approach an appropriate Forum on 22.07.2024. The order, as such, reads as under:- “Notice. Mr. Navlesh Verma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted permission to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to approach an appropriate Forum. 3. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ” 10. Apparently on 22.07.2024, this Court was not apprised that the DRT had already been approached and order has already been passed on 18.07.2024 against it. 11. 3. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ” 10. Apparently on 22.07.2024, this Court was not apprised that the DRT had already been approached and order has already been passed on 18.07.2024 against it. 11. Against the order of DRT, an Appeal was filed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) and the same was dismissed on 29.07.2024 by noticing that the respondent-Bank had granted two credit facility to M/s Blue Chip Computer Service and M/s A2Z Departmental Store and the land and building had been mortgaged by Rajinder Singh comprising in Khata/Khatauni No.47/61, Khasra No.115/2020, measuring 8 biswas situated at Mauza Muhal Sihardi Musalmana, Hadbast No.769, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. The relevant observations read as under:- “I have considered the rival submissions. From the perusal of the appeal, it appears that the respondent bank had granted two credit facilities, one of Rs.44 lacs to Blue Chip Computer Service and the other of Rs.25 lacs to M/s A2Z Departmental Store, the appellant herein. M/s A2Z Departmental Store is a proprietary concern of Mr. Rajinder Singh and M/s Blue Chip Computer Service is proprietary concern of Mrs. Manju Devi, wife of Mr. Rajinder Singh. To secure the above loans, Mr. Rajinder Singh had mortgaged his land & building comprising in Khata/Khatauni No.47/61, Khasra No.115/20, measuring 8 biswas, situated at Mauza Muhal Sihardi Musalmana, Hadbast No.769, Tehsil Kasauli, Distrit Solan (H.P). Since the appellant failed to maintain the financial discipline, the respondent bank resorted to measures under the SARFAESI Act and issued notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) thereof in respect of appellant’s account bearing No.CCL-70700628563. Perusal of the record reveals that the property in question has been mortgaged in both the accounts. Since the appellant has failed to make payment despite issuance of demand notice dated 17.05.2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act in respect to appellant’s account bearing No.CCL-70700628563 and possession notice dated 28.09.2021 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act thereafter, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Ld. DRT. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. File be consigned to record room.” 12. DRT. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. File be consigned to record room.” 12. Without challenging the said orders on merits, the petitioner filed the present petition on 02.09.2024 and as noticed above only for the purpose of praying for the relief to de-seal the house/property and directing the respondent to re-schedule the re- payment of the outstanding amount in installments. The prayer made is as under:- “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the present petition may very kindly be allowed and Hon’ble Court may please to direct the Respondent- Bank to de-seal the house/property of the petitioner and further directing the respondent in rescheduling the repayment of outstanding amount in installments of an amount which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper or the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper.” 13. It is thus apparent that from the year 2021 when the notice has been issued, the petitioner has not come forth as such to make the payment and only has been resorting to various forums to avoid the secured assets from being taken over. The Apex Court in South Indian Bank Limited and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another reported in (2023) 17 SCC 311 has already held that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in such cases. In the said case a similar issue arose, where notices had been challenged before the High Court issued under the SARFAESI Act. The High Court allowed the Writ petition by allowing the borrower to make the deferred payment in 20 installments and it was noticed that relief given was more than the one prayed for, which at the first instance had been granted by the learned Single Judge and then modified by the Division Bench. It was also noticed that the Writ petition involving private individuals over a financial transactions is not maintainable and that the jurisdiction as such under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had to be invoked with caution. In such circumstances especially keeping in view the commercial interest of the parties being involved, reliance was placed on large number of judgments including judgment in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon , reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 that there is limitation as such laid down keeping in view of alternate remedies being available. In such circumstances especially keeping in view the commercial interest of the parties being involved, reliance was placed on large number of judgments including judgment in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon , reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 that there is limitation as such laid down keeping in view of alternate remedies being available. Similarly, reliance was also placed upon the judgment in Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir , reported in (2022) Vol 5 SCC 345 that private financial institutions were not performing public functions and the High Court should not normally entertain the Writ petitions, as it was amounting to abuse of process of Court and rights of the secured creditors to recover the dues having been seriously prejudiced. The relevant observations can be culled out from the said decision, which reads as under:- “12 : In view of the fair stand taken by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants, we do not wish to interfere with the impugned orders passed. We may, however, reiterate the settled position of law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute. We are also constrained to take judicial notice of the fact that certain High Courts continue to interfere in such matters, leading to a regular supply of cases before this Court. One such High Court is that of Punjab & Haryana. 18. While doing so, we are conscious of the fact that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are rsequired to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal.” 14. In the present case, it has been noticed that an appropriate application has not been filed challenging the action of the Bank under Section 13(2) and 13(4) which had been noticed by the DRT and only ancillary reliefs of re-scheduling and paying installments and holding out sops to pay at various Forums is an effort to delay the sale of the secured assets by the petitioner either through himself or through his wife-Manju Devi. Thus, it can be safely said that the petitioner is Forum shopping in all possible Courts/Tribunals to delay the sale process. 15. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition, which was disposed of and the applications that have been filed and the interim relief which was granted in de-sealing and handing back to petitioner, have to be recalled . 16. Resultantly, keeping in view the above, we dismiss the present Writ petition and the order dated 05.09.2024 is recalled. Needless to say that all interim orders stand vacated on account of dismissal of the writ petition. 17. The amount of Rs.24 lacs which is deposited with the Bank is liable to be adjusted against the arrears due against the outstanding amounts. It is open to the petitioner to pay the balance outstanding amount by approaching the bank for settlement of the accounts. 18. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.