Dismissed

Aitha Ravinder, v. The Andhra Bank, Rep by its General Manager

Telangana HC25 Jun 2013WP/27999/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed writ petitions challenging an auction sale order obtained by respondents without the petitioner's impleadment. The Bench held that the petitioner's remedy via writ was not available; he must seek review or appeal. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed with costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed with costs; pending miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.

Aitha Ravinder, Vs The Andhra Bank, Rep by its General… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶4

Writ Petition Nos. 27999 and 28000 of 2009

¶5

DATED:25-06-2013

¶6

Between: Aitha Ravinder

¶7

… Petitioner And

¶8

The Andhra Bank, rep., by its General Manager, Head Office, Saifabad, Hdyerabad and nine others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶11

Writ Petition Nos. 27999 and 28000 of 2009

¶12

COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)

¶13

These two writ petitions are filed praying to set aside the common order dated 03.11.2009, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, disposing of W.P. Nos. 6066 and 15651 of 2009.

¶14

The petitioner claiming that he is the highest bidder of the property auctioned by the Bank and that the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 6066 and 15651 of 2009, without impleading him as party-respondent, obtained the aforementioned order dated 03.11.2009, filed the present writ petitions praying to set aside the same. The writ petitions filed by the petitioner are misconceived. If according to the petitioner, he has purchased the property in the auction conducted by the Bank and has interest in the property, his remedy is to first seek leave of the Court to file review petition, for review of the said order or prefer appeal before a superior Court. But certainly, he cannot file writ petitions and seek directions to set aside the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench in the writ petitions.

¶15

On the last occasion, when we pointed out the legal remedies available to the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought time to obtain instructions for withdrawal of the writ petitions. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has no instructions in the matter.

¶16

In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs. The Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall also stand dismissed.

¶17

N.V. RAMANA, J

¶18

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶19

25^th June, 2013 Prv

Aitha Ravinder, v. The Andhra Bank, Rep by its General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aitha Ravinder, v. The Andhra Bank, Rep by its General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kakarlapudi Venkata Narasimha Raju, S/o Jagannadha Raju, Vs The Government of A.P.

Bollineni Venkata Satyavathi Vs The A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

M/s. Nikhil Tobaccos Vs The Tobacco Board

M.Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs The Spl. Court under a.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act

The All India Council for Technical Education Rep. by its Vs M/s. Gayathri Educational Society

Mir Mohsin Ali, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board