IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTlS AND HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13787 OF 2024 Between: Kolia Nehru Mala, W/o Kolia Raja KIshore D/o R D Prasad, Aged about 38 years Oco Housewife, R/o D No 22-53/1 4th Line Saipuram Colony, Near Sal Baba Temple Gollapudi, Vijayawada 521-225. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Bank of Maharastra. Rep by its Chief Manager /Authorised Officer Branch, Vijayawada. 2. Kolia Raja Kishore, S/o Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 41 Software, R/o D No 2253/1 4th Line Saipuram Colony Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi Vijayawada521225. 3. Kolia Sambasiva Rao, S/o Radha Krishna, R/o D Saipuram Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi, Vijayawada521 4. Kolia Padmavathi, w/o Sambasiva Rao, R/o D No 2253/1 Saipuram Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi, Vijayawada I Town years Occ No 2253/1 4th Line -225. 4th Line 521-225. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the the High Court may be appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, pleased to issue nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 01-04- 2024 in IR(SA)92/2024 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal as highly illegal, arbitrary ^ 4 ;^d against the settled proposition of law and consequently set -a-side order dated 01-04-2024 in IR(SA)92/2024 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal and direct the DRT, Visakhapatnam to consider the case of the petitioner on merits. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from D No 22-53/1 4th Line Saipuram Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi, Vijayawada, not to interfere with the peaceful posession of the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 1. Kolia Raja Kishore, S/o Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 41 years Occ Software, R/o D No 2253/1 4th Line Saipuram Colony Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi Vijayawada521225. 2. Kolia Sambasiva Rao, S/o Radha Krishna, R/o D No 2253/1 4th Line Saipuram Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi, Vijayawada521-225. 3. Kolia Padmavathi, w/o Sambasiva Rao, R/o D No 2253/1 4th Line Saipuram Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi, Vijayawada 521-225. Petitioners/Respondents AND 1. Kolia Nehru Mala, W/o Kolia Raja Kishore D/o R D Prasad, Aged about 38 Years, Occ Housewife, R/o D No 22-53/1 4th Line Saipuram Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi, Vijayawada 521-225. Respondent/Petitioner 2. Bank of Maharastra, Rep by its Chief Manager/Authorised Officer I Town Branch, Vijayawada. Respondent/Respondent Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in WP No. 13787/2024 dated 05- 07-2024 and dismiss the writ petition with costs in the interests of justice. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: Bank of Maharastra, Rep by its Chief Manager/Authorised Officer, I Town Branch, Sri. Akkabathula Sandeep, S/o Jacob, aged 37 years, D.No.11-25-18, P.B.No.87, K.T.Road, I Town Branch, Vijayawada. Petitioner/Respondent No.1 AND 1. Kolia Nehru Mala, W/o Kolia Raja Kishore D/o R D Prasad, Aged about 38 years Occ Housewife, R/o D No 22-53/1 4th Line Saipuram Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi, Vijayawada 521-225. Respondent/Petitioner 2. Kolia Raja Kishore, S/o Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 41 years Occ Software, R/o D No 2253/1 4th Line Saipuram Colony Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi Vijayawada521225. 3. Kolia Sambasiva Rao, S/o Radha Krishna, R/o D No 2253/1 4th Line ei Saipuram Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi, Vijayawada521-2 25. 4. Kolia Padmavathi, w/o Sambasiva Rao, R/o D No 2253/1 4th Line Saipuram Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi, Vijayawada 521-225. Respondents/Respondents 2 to 4 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 to vacate the interim orders of Stay dated: 05.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No. 13787 of 2024 and the Writ Petition may be dismissed with exemplary costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PETA GNANA TEJA Counsel for the Respondents: CH MARKONDAIAH, Mr.D.V. SASIDHAR The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010227662024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sr.No:-35 AT AMARAVATI [3483] 7f WRIT PETITION NO: 13787 of 2024 Kolia Nehru Mala ...Petitioner Vs. Bank Of Maharastra and Others ...Respondent(s) ****v***** Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.Peta Gnana Teja Mr. Ch. Markondaiah, Mr. D. V. Sasidhar Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 7 ■" 3> ” ' DATE PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ : The petitioner preferred a Securitization Application accompanied by an application for condonation of delay before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The Securitization Application was filed challenging the notice, dated 09.01.2024, issued by the Advocate Commissioner, who had been appointed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in regard to the secured asset with the Bank of Maharastra - respondent No.1 herein. 2. The Debts Recovery Tribunal noted that the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization and 2 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.13787 of 2024 Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) was 45 days from the date on which measures had been taken. The Debts Recovery Tribunal noted that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, had passed an order in CrI. M.P. No.384 of 2022 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the house, which was a secured asset, on 02.03.2022. Against the said order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal noted that the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, which petition came to be dismissed by virtue of order, dated 28.06.2023, whereafter the Securitization Application was filed on 23.02.2024. The Debts Recovery Tribunal noted that the order impugned, which was challenged in the Securitization Application, was within the knowledge of the petitioner, despite which there was a delay of more than seven months in filing the Securitization Application. In those circumstances, holding that the Securitization Application is time barred and that the petitioner had no right to get the delay condoned, the Securitization Application was dismissed. 3. Challenging the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the dismissal of the Securitization Application on the ground of limitation, was not warranted in law inasmuch as issuance of a notice by the Advocate Commissioner on 09.01.2024 was a subsequent cause of action, which could not be connected with the dismissal 3 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.13787 of 2024 of the writ petition in which the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, dated 02.03.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the Tribunal committed an error in law in holding that the Tribunal had no right to condone the delay and therefore by holding so, it had ignored the settled legal position that if delay was sufficiently explained, the same could be condoned even beyond the period of 45 days prescribed under Section 17 of the Act. 5. The relevant paragraphs of the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is impugned, are reproduced hereunder; “5. As per Sec. 17 the filing of appeal limitation period is 45 days from the date on which measures had been taken. In the present case Ld. CMM, Vijayawada has passed order in CrI.MP No. 384 of 2022 in C.F.No. 837/2022 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the house bearing D.No. 22-52 in L.P.No. 1956/16, Gollapudi Panchayath, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. 6. After perusal of the order of Ld. CJM, I find that Hon'ble CJM has passed order under Sec. 13(4) on 02.03.2022 and the applicant has filed Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. After hearing the Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court have dismissed the Writ Petition on 20.06.2023. After that the applicant has filed the present SA on 23.02.2024. 7. Accordingly the applicant has knowledge about the order of Ld. CJM against which the applicant has filed Writ petition. Hence this SA is time barred under Sec. 17 and this Tribunal has no right to condone the delay. In the present case after the order of Hon’ble High Court also the applicant has also delayed about more than 07 months.” 6. The order certainly is not a very happily worded order. Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the order suggest as if the Debts Recovery Tribunal is aware of the 4 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.13787 of 2024 fact that it can condone the delay but was not doing so on account of the fact that the petitioner had knowledge regarding the dismissal of the writ petition on 20.06.2023 and that between the date of the dismissal of the writ petition and filing of the Securitization Application, almost seven months had elapsed. However, on a reading of paragraph No.7 of the order impugned, it is clear that the Tribunal has held that it has no right to condone the delay i.e., beyond the period of 45 days prescribed under Section 17 of the Act. This view that the Tribunal has no right to condone the delay is contrary to the position settled by the Division Bench of the combined High Court of the Andhra Pradesh in Porus Laboratory Private Limited v. Indian Bank, Asset Recovery management Branch, Hyderabad^ wherein it was held: 20. More importantly, it may be noted that if an aggrieved person including a borrower, - IS prevented from availing the statutory remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act merely because the application thereunder was not presented within the stipulated 45 days the hierarchy of remedies provided under the SARFAESI Act would be denied to him and rendered nugatory on that short ground. Such an aggrieved person would then be left with no remedy but to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. As the very purpose of creating statutory Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals is to provide efficacious alternative means of resolution of disputes so as to lessen the burden that would otherwise be visited upon the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, the statutory remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act cannot be interpreted in such a narrow and pedantic compass. Be it noted, by virtue of the proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDDB Act, the Appellate Tribunal has been held to have the power to condone the delay in the presentation of an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act beyond the 30 day period stipulated therein. There is no logic or rationale in not extending the same power to the Tribunal while entertaining a belated application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, by taking recourse to Sections 17(7) and SARFAESI Act read with Section 24 of the RDDB Act.” 37 of the ^ 2018 see Online Hyd 161 tv 5 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.13787of2024 7. Be that as it may, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Debts Recovery Tribunal for considering the issue of condonation of delay in the correct perspective by passing a well considered speaking order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER To, 1. The Chief Manager/Authorised Officer, I Town Branch, Vijayawada. 2. Kolia Raja Kishore, S/o Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 41 years Occ Software, R/o D No 2253/1 4th Line Saipuram Colony Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi Vijayawada521225. 3. Kolia Sambasiva Rao, S/o Radha Krishna, R/o D No 2253/1 4th Line Saipuram Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi, Vijayawada521-225. 4. Kolia Padmavathi, w/o Sambasiva Rao, R/o D No 2253/1 4th Line Saipuram Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple Gollapudi, Vijayawada 521-225. 5. One CC to SRI. PETA GNANA TEJA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI. CH MARKONDAIAH, Mr.D.V. SASIDHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Three C.D.Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED:07/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.13787 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS