IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12709 OF 2025 Between: 1. Samudrala Vijaya Kumari, W/o Sujan Raju, aged about 64 years, R/o D.No. 5-55-81, Flat No. 2, Rohini Homes Apartments, 4/18-1, Brodipet, Guntur. 2. Parasa Sujeev Kumar, S/o Sujan Raju, aged about 34 years R/o Door No. 5-55-81, Flat No.2, Rohini Homes, Apartments, 4/18-1, Brodipet, Guntur. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. Canara Bank, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Eluru Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada - 520 002. 2. M/sV.S.U.G. Boitics, Rep.by its Managing Partner, Sri. Gone Venkata Subba Rao, Door No. 23-3-21, Narravari Street, Satyanarayanapura m, Vijayawada. 3. Sri Gone Venkata Subba Rao, S/o Narasaiah, Door No. 23-3-21, Narravari Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada. 4. Yajja Vara Suryanarayana, S/o Venkata Ramana Rao, Door No. 25-18- 42, Sampath Nagar, Guntur. ...RESPONDENTS 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order, dated 18-03-2025 passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata in I.A. No.345 of 2023 in Diary No. 578 of 2023 with regard to direction of payment of 25 percentage of Rs. 1.00 crore as pre-deposit, as required U/S 21 of the RDB Act, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India by declaring that the Petitioners are not liable to make the pre-deposit of 25 % of the alleged debt amount under Section 21 of the RDB Act, in view of the fact that they are not borrowers or guarantors and consequently direct the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata to entertain and decide the appeal preferred by the Petitioners without insisting on the mandatory pre deposit. one lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the order passed in O.A.No.60 of 2017, dated 27-02-2019 by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondents: -— The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010239772025 Bench Sr.No:-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [0] [y - WRIT PETITION NO: 12709 of 2025 Samudrala Vijaya Kumari and another ...Petitioners Vs. Canara Bank and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for petitioners Advocate for respondents Sri Venkata Durga Rao Anantha None CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 9th May 2025 PC : The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions against the orders dated 18.03.2025 in I.A.No.345 of 2023 in Diary No.578 of 2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (D.R.A.T.) Briefly stated, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (D.R.T.) determined the liability of the petitioners as guarantors in O.A.No.60 of 2017 where the petitioners herein were held to be guarantors based upon the documents which were duly proved before the Tribunal created under the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, “the R.D.B.I. Act”). 2. % 2 Since the petitioners were set ex parte during the proceedings before the D.R.T. and the O.A. was allowed and an ex parte decree passed, an application vide MANo.31 of 2019 in O.A.No.60 of 2017 was filed by the petitioners for setting aside the ex parte decree on 27.02.2019, which was dismissed by virtue of order dated 11.07.2023. 3. The petitioners then challenged the said order before the D.R.A.T where the D.R.A.T directed the petitioners to deposit 25% of the decretal amount in terms of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, “R.D.B. Act”). 4. The petitioners challenge the said order on the ground that the petitioners ought not to have been mandated to deposit 25% of Rs.1.00 crore as pre-deposit under Section 21 of the R.D.B. Act, as the same is illegal and arbitrary. 5. It is also sought to be emphasized that the petitioners in fact have no obligation to suffer the decree against them inasmuch as the petitioners did not stand as guarantors and that the documents which were placed before the D.R.T. by the creditor were forged and fabricated. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. We find that even when under Section 21 of the R.D.B. Act, an appellant is required to pre-deposit up to 50% of the amount of debt due from him, as determined by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the R.D.B. Act, yet, it is only on the request of the petitioners that the appellate Tribunal exercised 3 its discretion and reduced the amount of pre-deposit to 25% of the debt due. In our opinion, the order passed by the appellate Tribunal suffers from no illegality and we find no merit in this petition. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// sE^TlO^roF p' ^ To 1. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 2. One CC to Sri Venkata Durga Rao Anantha Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.12709 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS