IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA Bench Sr.No:-

APHC010154042026 PRADESH [3575]

AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION No: 8075 of 2026 Uma Padma Latha and Others ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

The Debt Recovery Tribunal and Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA DATE : 16TH April, 2026 *********

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr.A.K. Kishore Reddy Advocate for Respondent: Mr.M.Vipin Viswas represented Mr.Kunuku Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for respondents

2 to 4.

LISA GILL, J:

1. Grievance raised by petitioners is that Interlocutory Application i.e., I.A.No.4584 of 2025 filed by petitioners in S.A.No.119 of 2023 is not being adjudicated upon by learned Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that possession of scheduled premises was taken by respondents on 7.09.2025 in violation of order dated 22.04.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate- cum-Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru in Crl.M.P.No.616 of 2024. Therefore, physical possession of premises should be delivered back to petitioners. It is further contended that petitioners were not even allowed to collect their personal belongings which are lying in the residential property at the time of taking possession.

3. It is brought to our notice that I.A.No.4584 of 2025 filed by petitioners seeking re-possession of property has been rejected by learned DRT on 09.04.2026. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondents that in view of passing of order dated 09.04.2026, this writ petition is rendered infructuous. Same is admittedly an appealable order. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners has argued that order dated 09.04.2026 itself is an illegal, arbitrary order passed by learned DRT, without taking into consideration the arguments as raised before it and in utter violation of provisions of law.

5. All arguments as are being raised before us, challenging the action of respondent-Financial Institution in taking over possession are well within the realm of consideration of learned DRT. No exceptional or extraordinary ground has been pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners which calls for intervention at this stage in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

6. At this stage we refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter lest there be any prejudice to either of the parties before appropriate Forum. Insofar as personal belongings of petitioners which are stated to be lying in the premises in question, learned counsel for respondent-Finance Company does not raise any objection in case they are removed therefrom by petitioners.

7. It is agreed that petitioners shall remove the said belongings from scheduled premises on 18.04.2026 at 11.00 a.m., in the presence of authorized representatives of respondent-Finance Company; inventory thereof shall be prepared and the Bank and / or petitioners are at liberty to carry out videography of the same.

8. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to petitioners to avail statutory remedy (ies) available to them to challenge order dated 09.04.2026 passed by learned DRT, while taking all available pleas. There is no expression of opinion on merits of the matter. No costs.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly.

(LISA GILL)

JUDGE (NINALA JAYASURYA)

JUDGE Date:16.04.2026

Note: Furnish C.C. today.

B/o.

BLV

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Writ Petition No.8075 of 2026

16^th April, 2026 Note: Furnish C.C. today.

B/o. BLV