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