K Bhudevi Vs the Bank of India

K BHUDEVI, W/O K.NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, RESIDENT OF D.NO.3-161, WARD NO.3, MUNEPPA COLONY, B.K.PALLI VILLAGE, MADANAPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶12

SRI K.NARAYANA SWAMY, W/O K.RAMA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC TEACHER, RESIDENT OF D.NO.3-161, WARD NO.3, MUNEPPA COLONY, B.K.PALLI VILLAGE, MADANAPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE BANK OF INDIA, GANDABOYANAPALLI BRANCH, VAYALPAD MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SRI D.SITA RAMA RAJU S/O KESAV RANGA RAO.

¶16

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CUMPRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR (SENIOR DIVISION), CHITTOOR

¶17

2

¶18

DISTRICT.

¶19

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, II TOWN POLICE STATION, MADANAPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased leased to suspend the operation of the Order Dt: 17-03-2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.37 of 2026 by the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate -cum - Principal Civil Judge, Chittoor (Senior Division), Chittoor District (Not communicated, however Copy Application is filed on 08-06-2026 requesting to furnish the order) and subsequent Notice dated 05-06-2026 (Served on 0806-2026) issued by the Advocate Commissioner in Crl.M.P.No.37 of 2026, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Honourable court, and pass s

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased leased to dispense with the filing of certified copy as well as Xerox copies of the Possession Notice bearing Ref.No.GBP/AK/SARFAESI/2025-26/03, dated 26-09-2025 of the Dt respondent Bank and the copy of Order Dt: 1703-2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.37 of 2026 by the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate -cum - Principal Civil Judge, Chittoor (Senior Division), Chittoor District in the interest of justiceand pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶27

3

¶28

1.VUTUPALLI RAJANNA

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR HOME

¶31

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

4

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶35

AND

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.15388 of 2026

¶38

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma)

¶39

The present writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring that the order dated 17.03.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.37 of 2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Civil Judge, Chittoor (Senior Division), Chittoor District, under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the ‘SARFAESI Act’) is not correct and taking of physical possession of the subject property viz, an extent of 1488 sq.feet or 165.33 Sq.yards in Sy.No.102-3 and 101-2, Plot No.3, situated in Ward No.3, Ring Road Segment-1, New Power House to Municipal Pillars Interior, B.K.Palli Village, Madanapalli Mandal, Annamayya District, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to set aside the same.

¶40

5

¶41

Heard Sri V.Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondentBank of India and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by filing I.R(S.A)No.747 of 2025 and the same was returned on 16.12.2025 on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Consequently, the writ petitioners requested for refund of the court fee. Meanwhile, the petitioners approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad, in view of the endorsement of the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam. However, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, also did not entertain the matter on the ground that the court fee paid before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, had not been transmitted. Therefore, the petitioners are unable to avail the statutory remedy and they sought protection for a reasonable time.

¶43

Learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent-Bank of India, would submit that the petitioners had sufficient time to avail

¶44

6

¶45

statutory remedy available under law and therefore, the prayer sought for in the writ petition does not deserve for consideration. She also submits on instructions, that the appeal No.2420 of 2025 filed by the writ petitioners is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and that the petitioners ought to have pursue their remedies available to them before the Tribunal in accordance with law.

¶46

Considering the practical difficulties faced by the petitioners, the endorsement made by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, returning the appeal filed by the writ petitioners and also the uncertainty as to whether the jurisdiction lies with the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Viskhapatnam or Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad, this Court is of the view that protection can be granted to the petitioners for a reasonable period for pursuing the legal process initiated.

¶47

Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioners to pursue their remedy by filing appeal before the competent forum within a period of three weeks from the date of

¶48

7

¶49

receipt of a copy of this order. Until then, the proceedings in auction shall remain in abeyance. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶51

¶52

BATTU DEVANAND, J

¶53

______________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J

¶54