SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3227

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY,Tuhin Kumar Gedela
MITAPALLI PURUSHOTHAM – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER – Respondent
WP 2337/2026



##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:2647

APHC010036942026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3558]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT PETITION NO: 2337/2026

Between:

1. M ITAPALLI PURUSHOTHAM, S/O VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75

YEARS, R/O DOOR NO23-11-117, SATYANARAYANA PURAM

VIJAYAWADA - 520011, NTR DISTRICT, AP.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. T HE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, M/S. UNION BANK OF INDIA,

NAGESWRARAO PANTULU ROAD, SATYA NARAYAN PURAM

VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, AP - 520011. MOBILE NO

8591405041, UBIN0805041 UNIONBANKOF INDIA.BANK

2. T HE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. UNION BANK OF INDIA,

NAGESWRARAO PANTULU ROAD, SATYA NARAYAN PURAM

VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, AP - 520011.

3. M AJETI SURESH KUMAR, S/O RAMA SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50

YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO 23-27-24, RANAPRATAP

STREET, SATYANARAYANA PURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520011, NTR

DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. M AJETI LAKSHMI, W/O SURESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO23-27-24, RANAPRATAP STREET,

SATYANARAYANA PURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520011, NTR DISTRICT,

ANDHRA PRADESH.

##PAGE2##

2

CMR,J &2 0G2T6K:A,JP HC:2647

W.P.No.2337 of 2026

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 toPleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in

the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents

sale of immovable properties by way of E-auction sale Notice under the

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act.2002 R/w proviso to U/s 13(4) Rules R/w 8 of the

Security Interest ( Enforcement) Rules 2002 for action of immovable property

situated in R S No 116-2, Door No23-27-24, Ranapratap Street,

Satyanarayana Puram, Vijayawada-520011, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh in

Municipal ward No13, New Assessment No126057 for an extent of 196.172

Square Yards house site with G3 building is arbitrary, illegal and violation of

the Act and also violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently

same as above and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. JONNALAGADDA U BHASKARAM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

##PAGE3##

3

CMR,J &2 0G2T6K:A,JP HC:2647

W.P.No.2337 of 2026

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.V.Dyumani, learned

Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The 3rd respondent is the principal borrower. As he has

committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the respondent-bank has

initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and sold away the secured asset

in the auction that was held on 28.01.2026. The further process relating to the

said sale is pending.

3. The petitioner is the third party to the said loan transaction. He

claims to have lent amount to the 3rd respondent-borrower under a promissory

note and, for recovery of the said amount, he has filed a suit in the Civil Court

and obtained an order of attachment before judgment. Therefore, he has

challenged the auction held by the bank on the ground that the auction was

held during the subsistence of the order of attachment before judgment

passed by the competent Civil Court.

4. Admittedly, the mortgage of the secured asset in favour of the

bank is prior in point of time. After the subject property was mortgaged to the

bank by the 3rd respondent-borrower, the said order of attachment before

judgment was obtained by the petitioner from the Civil Court. So the mortgage

in favour of the bank which is prior in point of time will prevail. The order of

attachment before judgment will not come in the way of the bank to sell the

secured asset for realizat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top