APHC010057872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3212 of 2025 Bench Sr.Nos:- 54-56 [3483] State Bank of India Simhadri Venkata Vijay Kumar ... Petitioner … Review Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ... Respondents ********** Advocate for Review Petitioner : Mr. Y. V. K. Chakravarthy Advocates for Respondents : - CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 5th August 2025 P C : I.A.No.4 of 2025 Requirement of filing the certified copy of the order, dated 22.04.2025, passed in W.P.No.3212 of 2025, is dispensed with. Accordingly, this I.A. is disposed of. I.A.No.3 & 2 of 2025 I.A.No.3 of 2025 is an application seeking leave of this Court to file a Review Petition seeking review of the judgment and order, dated 22.04.2025. The applicant was not a party respondent in W.P.No.3212 of 2025. It is stated that the applicant was deliberately not incorporated as a party respondent. 2 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.3212 of 2025 2. The applicant claims that he had entered into an agreement to sell with the principal borrower in regard to the same property, which was mortgaged by the principal borrower in favour of the State Bank of India, the petitioner in W.P.No.3212 of 2025. It is stated that the possession was also delivered in favour of the applicant. On account of the failure on the part of the principal borrower to execute the sale deed, the applicant claims that he had filed civil suit for specific performance in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, vide O.S.No.34 of 2024, who, by virtue of its order, dated 18.03.2024, temporarily restrained the defendant/principal borrower from alienating the schedule property. This order, however, was to remain in operation only till 02.04.2024. 3. In the writ petition filed by the State Bank of India, the grievance of the Bank was that the sale certificate issued in favour of the auction purchaser in proceedings initiated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, was not being registered by the registering authority based upon the interim injunction, dated 18.03.2024, passed in O.S.No.34 of 2024. Having considered the matter in that perspective, this Bench, by virtue of order, dated 22.04.2025, observed that the registering authority would not be in any way obstructed to register the document in question in view of the fact that the order, dated 18.03.2024, passed by the trial Court was a self limiting order and was to remain in operation only till 02.04.2024. 3 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.3212 of 2025 4. It is not denied by learned counsel for the applicant that even when the applicant/review petitioner herein had filed an application seeking extension of the orders beyond 02.04.2024, yet the interim injunction was not extended. It is also stated by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal in that context. 5. In our opinion, we feel that this is not a fit case for grant of leave to the review petitioner to seek review of the judgment and order, dated 22.04.2025. 6. I.A.No.3 of 2025 is, accordingly, dismissed and consequently Review Petition i.e. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is also dismissed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J kbs