, APHC010302262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■I THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE^ AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 15285 OF 2025/ Between; 1. Janapati Anil Kumar, S/o. Raju, aged 33 years, R/o. D.No. 20-5-81, 3rd Lane, Vantavari Colony, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. 2. Thota Venkateswarlu, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 53 years R/o. D.No. Rajapanagal Road, Ongole Town, Prakasam 4-1-178, 12th lane. District. ...PETITIONERS- AND 1. Union Bank of India, Rep. by Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Union Bank Bhavan, 239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021, Maharashtra. 2. Union Bank of India, Rep. by Authorized Officer, Regional Office, Ongole, Anjaneya Complex, Bhagya Nagar 2nd Line, Ongole-523 001. Prakasam District. 3. Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Manager, Ongole Main Branch, 337-1- 350, Trunk Road, Ongole. ^4 4. M/s Sai Srinivasa Book Depot, Rep. by its Proprietor, Nune Sudhakar 0pp. HCM Junior College, Miryalapalem Centre, Trunk Road, OngoIe-523 001, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. Nune Sudhakar Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, aged 54 years R/o. D.No. 26-1-9, Pappu Bazar, Near CVN Reading Room, Ongole-523 001, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. Rao R/o. 6. Thunuguntia Naga Lakshmi, W/o.Kiran Kumar, Aged 47 years Near Murali Krishna Flower Stall, 0pp. Sri Gandhi Road, Ongole-523001, Vijayalakshmi Dresses Venkateswara Nightees Shop, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS^ Petition under Article 2^^of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, Writ or Order to- a) Declare that the sale held by the 2nd Respondent by way of e auction of building bearing Door No.23-1-203, Ward No.5, Block No. 1 in T.S.No.28, Assessment No. 14076 within the municipal limits of Ongole Municipality declaring the sole higheast bidder Thunuguntia Naga Lakshmi/6*^ respondent as illegal, arbitrary and not binding on the petitioners; b) Consequently set aside the sale held by the 2 respondent declaring the 6^*^ respondent as sole highest bidder in the 1e auction held on 31-12-2024 . nd 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 including taking possession of the property building bearing Door No. 23-1-203, Ward No.5, Block No.1 in T.S.No.28, Assessment No. 14076 within the municipal limits of Ongole Municipality by the 6th Commissioner as per the ’e’ auction proceedings of the 2 31-12-2024, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. respondent/ThunuguntIa Naga Lakshmi through Advocate/ respondent dated nd counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. MALLAVOLU NIKITHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6:— The Court made the following order; ; M/s. V. DYUMANI, SC FOFMJBl IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Bench Sr.No:-5 [3446] APHC010302262025 WRIT PETITION NO: 15285 of 2025 Janapati Anil Kumar and others ...Petitioners Vs. Union Bank of India and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioners: Ms. Mallavolu Nikitha Advocate for Respondents: Ms. V. Dyumani CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO : 26*'’June, 2025. PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ : The petitioners challenge the sale of a property bearing Door No.23-1- 203, situate in Ward No.5, Block No.1, within the municipal limits of Ongole Municipality, under the SARFAESI Act, in favour of the auction purchaser respondent No.6 - Thunuguntia Nagalakshmi. It appears that the property in question was mortgaged by respondent No.5 - Nune Sudhakar Rao, as a DATE security for payment of loan advanced in favour of respondent No.3 - Union Bank of India. 2. The case of the petitioners is that whereas the property was mortgaged in favour of the Bank on 29.10.2014, prior to the date of the HCJ & RRRJ WP 15285 2025 creation of the mortgage in favour of the Bank, the respondent No.5 had entered into an Agreement to Sell on 26.08.2014 with the petitioners in regard to the same property but did not execute a regular Sale Deed in their favour despite having received an amount of Rupees Nineteen Lakhs. It is stated that a suit for specific performance came to be filed by the petitioners in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, on 01.10.2021, after the private respondent No.5 failed to respond to the legal notice dated 17.09.2021, served upon the said respondent to come forward to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioners. The suit for specific performance, it is stated, came to be finally decreed by virtue of the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2022. 3. Another ground urged is that the secured asset could not have been subjected to proceedings under the SARFAESl Act, inasmuch as the secured asset had not been registered in the Central Registry as was otherwise required under Section 26-D of the SARFAESl Act. It is in that backdrop that the petitioners seek declaration from this Court that the sale made in favour of respondent No.6 be declared as illegal and not binding on the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank, Mrs. V. Dyumani, on the other hand, would submit that the decree for specific performance obtained by the petitioners from the Court below was a collusive decree, inasmuch as the defendant had not contested the suit at all. 5. 3 HCJ & RRRJ WP 15285_2025 jti: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Insofar as the averment of the petitioners that the secured asset not registered with the Central Registry is concerned, the same could have been raised and challenged in appropriate proceedings before the DRT. 7. was Insofar as the relief that is sought by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition, seeking to declare the sale as illegal, based on the ground that there was a decree for specific performance obtained by them against respondent No.5 is concerned, in our opinion petitioners are required to agitate before the Civil Court, as the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not totally barred in terms of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, as the bar applies only in relation to any measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Reference in this regard be made to Central Bank of India vs. Prabha Jam\ wherein it was held; 8. this is an issue which the can “18. Further, the Sarfaesi Act is enacted essentially to provide a speedy mechanism for recovery of debts by banks and financial institutions. The Sarfaesi Act has not been enacted for providing a mechanism for adjudicating upon the validity of documents or to determine questions of title finally. The DRT does not have the jurisdiction to grant a declaration with respect to the mortgage deed or the sale deed as sought by the plaintiff. The jurisdiction to declare a sale deed or a mortgage deed being illegal is vested with the civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the civil court has the jurisdiction to finally adjudicate upon the first two reliefs.” Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the present Writ 9. \ Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. ' (2025) 4 see 38 4 f y f HCJ & RRRJ WP 15285 2025 No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SE To, 1. One CC to Ms. Mallavolu Nikitha, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to M/s.V Dyumani, SC for UBl [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies ssb HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 ORDER WP No.15285 OF 2025 If 19JUL 2025 Co DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS