In non-metropolitan areas, Chief Judicial Magistrates are deemed competent to exercise jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act, equating their functions with Chief Metropolitan Magistrates in security enforcement.

ORDER :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

Challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2025 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajahmundry, that the same was passed in contravention of Section 14 (1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act, 2002) and without jurisdiction, since the. property situate in Kakinada city, this writ petition has been filed.

2. The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are that consequent to classification of petitioner's loan account as Non Performing Asset; proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 were initiated and notice under Section 13 (2) demanding the petitioner to repay the amount was issued followed by possession notice and notice for E-auction. That thereafter the petitioner was informed by respondent no.4 that the property was sold in public auction, which was found to be false upon the enquiries made by her and immediately she filed writ petition vide W.P.No.2157 of 2024 and this Court allowed the said writ petition directing the respondents therein that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. That the petitioner filed caveat petitions before the Junior, Senior and District Courts at Kakinada, within whose jurisdiction her property is situated, by duly serving copies of the caveats to respondent nos. 2 to 4.

It is further stated in the writ petition that respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari and by suppressing the truth of location of property at Kakinada, obtained orders of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for taking symbolic possession of the property. That though the petitioner had cleared the due amount under the loan account, the Advocate Commissioner without serving any notice on her, took symbolic possession of the property by affixing a notice on wall of the property: That the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari has no jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 14 ,of the SARFAESI Act, since the property is situated in Kakinada and therefore, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2025 is liable to be set aside. Hence the writ petition.

3. Heard Sr/ Basheer Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Posani Ven/cateswar/u, learned senior counsel for Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4.

4. Sri Basheer Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration would contend that since the subject property is situated in Kakinada; the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada is competent to exercise jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, however, since the caveat petition filed by petitioner was pending therein, with a view to avoid issuance of notice to the petitioner, the respondent nos. 2 to 4, by suppressing truth of location of the property, filed petition under Section 14 of the Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari and obtained orders. Therefore, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2025 is uitra vires hence the same is unsustainable as also the symbolic possession taken by the Advocate Commissioner. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition with a direction to respondent nos.2 to 4 to follow the procedure contemplated under section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

5. Per contra, Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel, representing learned counsel for the respondent/bank, would contend that as per Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the Chief Metropolitan