A subsisting DRAT status quo order bars directions that would render it ineffective.

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited filed WPC No. 3709 of 2026 seeking directions to the revenue authorities to execute a possession warrant dated 11.06.2026, issued pursuant to an order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and to deliver possession of the secured asset to the company.

By order dated 20.08.2026, the High Court directed the finance company to submit an application with relevant documents before the Tehsildar, who was directed to consider the claim and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably within 45 days.

The affected parties sought review, contending that the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (“DRAT”) had already directed maintenance of status quo in the pending appeal and that the High Court’s directions would effectively permit further possession proceedings despite that order.

The finance company did not dispute the existence of the DRAT’s status quo order.

Whether the order dated 20.08.2026 in WPC No. 3709 of 2026 should be recalled in view of the DRAT’s subsisting order directing maintenance of status quo?

Whether the writ petition should be restored for hearing on merits after recalling the order under review?

The Court applied the principles governing review and recall of judicial orders where subsequent consideration reveals that the order is inconsistent with a binding or subsisting order passed by a competent appellate forum.

It further applied the doctrine that an order directing maintenance of status quo must be respected and that a subsequent judicial direction should not render such an order ineffective.

The underlying possession proceedings arose under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, under which the District Magistrate may assist a secured creditor in obtaining possession of secured assets; however, the exercise of that power remained subject to the DRAT’s operative status quo order.

The High Court found that its earlier direction requiring the Tehsildar to consider and act upon the finance company’s claim could facilitate execution of the possession warrant and thereby affect possession of the secured asset.

Since the DRAT had already directed the parties to maintain status quo, permitting the earlier writ order to operate would undermine and effectively neutralize the DRAT’s order.

The finance company did not contest this factual position.

Consequently, the Court considered recall of the order necessary to preserve the effectiveness of the DRAT proceedings and to avoid conflicting directions from different forums.

The High Court recalled its order dated 20.08.2026 passed in WPC No. 3709 of 2026 and restored the writ petition for hearing on merits before the appropriate Bench.

The Registry was directed to list WPC No. 3709 of 2026 in the week commencing 31.08.2026.