The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging the dismissal of a securitization application, holding the matter open for the petitioner to agitate their coparcenary claim in a pending civil suit for partition without influencing the Civil Court.
No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.13932 of 2019
ORDER :
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)
Heard Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The order dated 21.05.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, in S.A.No.84 of 2018, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. By way of the said order, the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, dismissed the Securitization Application filed by the petitioner herein.
Respondent No.3 herein, is no other than the father of the petitioner. The petitioner herein claimed to be the coparcener of the subject property. It is required to be noted that as against the same possession notice, dated 19.01.2018, issued by the respondent Nos.1 and 2-bank, the 3rd respondent approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, by filing S.A.No.57 of 2018, and by way of order dated 23.01.2019, the said S.A. was allowed by the Tribunal. In view of the order passed by the Tribunal in S.A.No.57 of 2018, there need not be any further adjudication on the same issue.
2
It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-bank that on 27.08.2019, the bank has offered one-time settlement and the 3rd respondent has been paying the amounts in accordance with the said proposal. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a suit in O.S.No.45 of 2018 on the file of the Court of V-Additional District Judge, Tirupati, is pending in respect of the subject property for partition.
In the above circumstances, this Court deems fit and proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by leaving it open for the petitioner herein to agitate his claim in the civil suit. It is also made clear that the Civil Court shall dispose of O.S.No.45 of 2018 without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order, dated 21.05.2019, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, in S.A.No.84 of 2018.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
A.V.SESHA SAI, J
M.GANGA RAO, J
03.12.2019 Akc
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
Writ Petition No.13932 of 2019
Dated : 03.12.2019
Akc
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal of the Securitization Application should be disposed of pending parallel civil suit.
Whether the Civil Court should be influenced by observations made in the Debts Recovery Tribunal order.
Whether the petitioner may follow the bank's one-time settlement proposal.
Petitioner
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
A.V.Sesha Sai
M.Ganga Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
