APHC010629572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 32565/2025 Between: State Bank Of India ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B SURYANARAYANA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.32565 OF 2025 Date of order:02.12.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.32565 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The present writ petition is filed for the following relief: <this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Official Respondents in placing the schedule property in prohibited property list on the basis of ad interim injunction order dated 03.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 89 of 2025 in OS 15/2025 in the matter of Ekkolu Venkata Surekha and Another vs. Nagisetti Eswari and Others by the Ld. Vil Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the relevant rules and in violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner apart from being without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002 and Registration Act, 1908 and rules made thereunder and consequently direct the respondents, particularly respondent no. 4 to receive, register and release the sale certificate dated 30.10.2025 when presented by the petitioner bank, in accordance with law, without refusing to register the same on the ground of prohibition on the basis of ad interim injunction order dated 03.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 89 of 2025 in OS 15/2025 in the matter of Ekkolu Venkata Surekha and Another vs. Nagisetti Eswari and Others by the Ld. VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, in respect of the schedule property in the interests of justice and to pass such other order….= 2. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court, -3- W.P. No.32565 OF 2025 Date of order:02.12.2025 by order dated 22.11.2025, observed as follows: <Petitioner is the bank and there is a registered mortgage in favour of the bank by the borrower. While that being so, when the bank tried to register the sale certificate, respondent No.4 was not entertained the same on the ground that the schedule property has been included in prohibition list based on the ad-interim injunction passed by the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in I.A.No.89/2025 in O.S.No.15/2025 filed by the unofficial respondents herein. In fact, the schedule property was mortgaged in favour of the petitioner bank on 20.02.2023. On perusal of the sale certificate, it clearly discloses that the documents which are relied upon by the plaintiffs are subsequent to the mortgage executed in favour of the bank on 20.02.2023. In any case, the ad-interim injunction granted in the suit is only between the parties thereto, in which the petitioner bank is not a party. Further, there is no provision for execution of the orders under the prohibitory list when there is a status-quo direction by the civil courts. Further, an identical issue had fallen for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.31162 of 2023 between Union of India vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has considered the entire issue and Standing Order 219 issued by the Revenue Department pertaining to registration, wherein the Court held that the action of the respondent authorities was contrary to law -4- W.P. No.32565 OF 2025 Date of order:02.12.2025 and finally directed them to remove the subject property from the prohibited list of CCA and to register the sale certificates. Learned Government Pleader requested a short adjournment to get written instructions with regard to the contents of the writ petition as well as the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.31162 of 2023.= 3. Despite the appearance, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 is unable to place any instructions. 4. In view of the same and relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Union Bank of India v. State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.31162 of 2023, this Court deems it appropriate to issue directions to the respondents to receive and process the documents submitted by the petitioner-bank in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to receive the documents furnished by the petitioner- bank and to register them as per the provisions of the Stamp Act. No order as to costs. 6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH BV