JUDGMENT :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

Challenging the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition vide W.P.No.20447 of 2019, the writ petitioner preferred this intra court appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent.

2. Through the impugned orders, the writ petition filed challenging the notice for attachment (Form No.5) dated 28.11.2019 attaching his property and also the notices dated 05.11.2019 and 06.05.2019 issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (for short, ‘APSFC’), was dismissed.

3. The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner availed top-up loan from APSFC vide two loan accounts by creating equitable mortgage over his property for due discharge of the said loans by executing a registered mortgage deed in favour of the APSFC. That wife of the petitioner also had availed loan of Rs.30,00,000/- from the APSFC, for which the petitioner stood as guarantor, however he did not keep his property as collateral security for the said loan and one Gundra Srinivasulu Reddy had kept his property as collateral security by executing a registered mortgage deed in favour of the APSFC. That the petitioner had cleared both the loan accounts by July,2017 and January,2018 respectively, but the APSFC did not release his property that was kept as collateral security for his loan accounts, stating that they will sell the said property for realization of the amount due under the loan account availed by his wife, as she had committed default in clearing her loan account. That the APSFC can only proceed against the properties of the petitioner’s wife or her guarantor for realization of the amount, but not against the property of the petitioner, since the said property was never mortgaged for discharge of the defaulted loan account of his wife. However, the APSFC, more than after three (03) years from the date of default of the account, is trying to bring the property of the petitioner to auction for realization of the amount covered under the loan account of his wife by orally informing the petitioner that collateral security offered to his loan accounts was extended to the loan account of his wife.

It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner received a notice dated 06.05.1991 under Section 32(G) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 stating that the petitioner had consented for holding the charge over the property by execution of guarantee agreement. That there had never been any agreement between the petitioner and the APSFC regarding extension of his property as a collateral security for the loan sanctioned to his wife. That on the oral advice given by the Branch Manager, APSFC, Nellore that upon payment of some amount towards the defaulted loan account, his property would be released; the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the said account on 26.03.2019. That after four years from the date of default committed by his wife, the APSFC had chosen to proceed against the petitioner by issuing notices dated 06.05.2019, 05.11.2019 and 28.11.2019 in Form No.5 stating that the petitioner’s property would be brought to sale. That the debt due under the loan account of petitioner’s wife was time barred and the property of the petitioner was never kept as collateral security for the loan account of his wife and hence, the APSFC cannot proceed against the petitioner’s property and therefore, issuance of notices is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Hence the writ petition.

4. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit denying the material averments of the petition inter alia contending that the petitioner stood as a guarantor by executing agreement of guarantee to the loan taken by his wife to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- granted to her on 28.11.2012, however the said fact was not mentioned in the writ affidavit. That one Gundra Srinivasa Reddy offered his property as collateral security for th