Amil Turakhia Through Power Of Attorney Holder Divyanshu Porwal vs Praveen Saraf

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24491
1 MCC-2768-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
th
ON THE 25 OF AUGUST, 2026
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 2768 of 2026
AMIL TURAKHIA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
DIVYANSHU PORWAL
Versus
PRAVEEN SARAF AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prathviraj Singh Parmar- Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Justice Subodh Abhyankar
1] Heard.
2] The present MCC has been filed by the petitioner u/s 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the following relief:-

"(a) Allow the present petition and modify/correct the order dated
14.08.2026 passed in Review Petition No. 1530 of 2026 by
deleting the opening paragraph which records that “Counsel for
the petitioner is directed to supply the copy of the petition along
with documents to Shri -Amil Turakhia, who is appearing on
behalf of respondent No. 2”, as the same is a patent error apparent
on the face of the record and creates a false impression that
Respondent No. 2 was represented and heard;
(b) Record that review petition no.1530 of 2026 was decided ex
parte against Respondent No. 2 (present petitioner), who was
neither served with notice nor afforded any opportunity of
hearing;
(c) Recall/modify the order dated 14.08.2026 to the extent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 9/2/2026
5:02:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24491
2 MCC-2768-2026
necessary and restore Review Petition No. 1530 of 2026 to its
original number for fresh hearing after due notice to and
opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner (Respondent No. 2
in the Review Petition);
(d) In the alternative, keep the operation of the order dated
14.08.2026 in abeyance till the present petitioner is supplied with
a complete copy of the Review Petition and is granted a
reasonable opportunity to file reply and be heard;
(e) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice."

3] In brief, the facts of the case are that initially W.P.No.17106/2026
was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 3/7/2026 on a petition filed
by the respondent no.1/Praful Saraf/auction purchaser in which the following
relief was sought:-

"(a) It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to issue appropriate writ, directions and orders to the
respondent to hand over physical possession of the property
bearing Plot No. 19, Singhania Colony, Rani Sati Gate, Indore,
M_P., to the petitioner forthwith.
(b) Any other writ direction or orders which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
(c) Costs of the proceedings."

4] The same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 3/7/2026
with the following observations:-
"8.It is apparent that the petitioner has purchased the
property in the auction. However, the DRT has already seized the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 9/2/2026
5:02:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24491
3 MCC-2768-2026
matter in an application filed by the borrower in SA

No.1263/2025, in which the following order has been passed by
the DRT:-

"Applicant by Shri Shekhar Sharma, Advocate
‘Respondent by Ms Vaishnavi Sharma, Advocate The
Ld Counsel for the Applicant is moving IA and IR for
restraining the Respondent-Bank from taking physical
possession of the secured asset and putting the property
for e-auction scheduled for 27/02/26. As far as the issue
with regard to taking physical possession is concerned,
as per the submission of the Ld Counsel for the
Respondent-Bank any Possession Notice has yet been
issued. In view of the fact, the Respondent-Bank shall
take steps for physical possession only after issuance of
fresh prior 15 days’ notice to the Applicant. As far as
auction is concerned it is made clear that if the auction
get materialised it shall be subject to final outcome of
the IR and Respondent- Bank shall not proceed to get
the sale certificate registered without taking the
approval of this Tribunal and filing proper reply to the
IR."
9. It is also found that the respondent no.2 has not filed
any other subsequent proceedings of the DRT and it is also not
informed what happened on 13.03.2026 when the matter was fixed
before the DRT. Be that as it may be, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to dispose of the
present petition with a direction to: the respondent no.1/bank to
expedite the hearing before the DRT in compliance of the order
passed by the DRT as aforesaid on 23.02.2026 by filing its reply.
10. It is needless to state that the proceedings shall be
subject to the final outcome of the order passed by the DRT and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 9/2/2026
5:02:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24491
4 MCC-2768-2026
this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of."
5] However, in respect of the aforesaid order, a review petition
no.1530/2026 was also filed by the auction purchaser, and thus, the order
dated 3.7.2026 passed in W.P.No.17106/2026 was recalled and the writ
petition was restored to its original number.
6] Again, a modification of the said order has been sought in the
present MCC, seeking the aforesaid relief.
7] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court while
disposing of the review petition has observed that "Counsel for the petitioner
is directed to supply the copy of the petition along with documents to Shri
Amit Turakijo, who is appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.", which has
given a false impression that the respondent no.2 had also appeared and
represented in the case, and thus, it may be mentioned that the respondent
no.2 was neither served with a notice nor was afforded any opportunity of
hearing.
8] On due consideration, we are of the considered opinion that, since
Writ Petition No. 17106/2026 itself has been restored to its original number,
the parties may address this Court in the writ petition itself instead of filing
the present MCC, which would only lead to further confusion. Accordingly,
the MCC is hereby dismissed.
9 ] Office is directed to list W.P.No.17106/2026 in the week
commencing 15/9/2026.
1 0 ] A copy of this order be placed on the record of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 9/2/2026
5:02:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24491
5 MCC-2768-2026
W.P.No.17106/2026.

11] Accordingly, the MCC is hereby dismissed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
JUDGE
das

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 9/2/2026
5:02:30 PM