Civil Courts have no jurisdiction over SARFAESI matters; registration of sale certificates cannot be blocked due to attachment orders.

ORDER

Heard Sri Hemanth Kumar Vemuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner filed proof of service of notice on the respondent Nos.5 to 8, which was published in daily newspaper “Eenadu” on 21.08.2025 in Greater Hyderabad Edition which was circulated in Medchal- Malkajgiri and Ranga Reddy Districts. In spite of the same, none appears for the respondent Nos.5 to 8.

3. This writ petition is filed seeking to direct the respondent No.2 to remove the subject property from the list of prohibited properties and to register the Sale Certificate to be issued by the petitioner Bank in favour of the Auction Purchaser under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5 has approached the petitioner-Bank for the purpose of credit facility in the year, 2018 and obtained loan of Rs.60,00,000/-, which was enhanced to Rs.69,00,000/- on 27.05.2020, by mortgaging the residential building bearing H.No.1-10-28/199/22/8 and 9 in Plot No.8 and 9 admeasuring 400 sq. yards situated at Subhodaya Colony, GHMC, Kapra Circle, ECIL, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and deposited the original title deeds and the same was recorded vide Reg.MODT No.4329 of 2018 in the books of the Sub- Registrar Office, Kapra. He further submits that in view of default in payment, the petitioner-Bank has initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act and issued sale notice dated 04.04.2025 under Rule 9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and later the petitioner-Bank sold the property by way of auction in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act . In the auction, M/s. E. Medimart rep. by its sole proprietor G. Chinna Obula Reddy was declared as highest bidder for the bid amount of Rs.1,28,27,000/- and after payment of 25% of the bid amount, the petitioner-Bank has confirmed the sale auction in favour of the Auction Purchaser. Thereafter, the petitioner-Bank came to know that the subject property is in the list of prohibited properties as per the attachment order passed by the respondent No.3-Chit Arbitrator-cum-Deputy Registrar of Chits in I.A.No.233 of 2020 in ARB.CF.No.323 of 2020 dated 30.12.2020. The respondent No.2-Sub-Registrar despite receipt of the representation of the petitioner-Bank on 26.04.2025 refused to remove the subject property from the list of prohibited properties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of respondent No.2 is contrary to the Orders passed by this Court in City Union Bank Limited Vs Sub Registrar, Peddapalli and Ors. ,, [2018 (5) ALT 279] and the same was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.38125 of 2018 dated 14.10.2019 and requested to direct the respondent No.2 to register the sale certificate to be issued by the petitioner Bank in favour of the Auction Purchaser.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submits that though the petitioner made a representation dated 26.04.2025, during the scrutiny, it is found that as per the order dated 30.12.2020 in I.A.No.233 of 2020 in ARB.CF.No.323 of 2020, the subject property is under attachment and kept in the prohibited property list on the basis of Attachment Orders passed by the respondent No.3. The sale certificate to be presented by the petitioner cannot be registered until and unl