APHC010556322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 28646 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:- L.M.1-1 [3483] Kappala Padmavathi and others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. The Debt Recovery Tribunal and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. D. Dorababu Advocate for Respondent: - CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 15th October, 2025. P C : The petitioners challenge the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.2 – Financial Institution, under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, on the ground that the property which is sought to be sold cannot be sold inasmuch as the said property was ordered to be attached by virtue of orders passed in Original Suit bearing O.S.Nos.534 and 564 of 2024. 2. The civil suits, it is stated, were filed by the petitioners, based on promissory notes which were executed on 14.11.2023 and 18.09.2024, to recover the amounts which were otherwise advanced by the petitioners to the private respondents, who were also the defendants in the aforesaid suits, 2 HCJ & RCJ WP_28646_2025 against whom the Financial Institution – respondent No.2, had initiated the recovery proceedings. 3. In the present case, it appears that the loan was advanced in favor of the principal debtor only upon execution of a mortgage deed in the year 2023, which is much before the order of attachment, which was passed in 2024. 4. A similar question had arisen before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of City Union Bank Ltd. vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District and others1, wherein it was held: “4. The common point for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the sale certificates executed by the bank in favour of the auction purchasers can be refused registration by the Registrar under the Registration Act, 1908 on the pretext of an order of attachment before judgment by a civil Court? 10. Insofar as the action of the first respondent in not registering the sale certificates is concerned, the Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Pradesh) relied upon Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. He also relied upon Standing Order 219 issued by the Revenue Department pertaining to the registration and it reads as follows: "S.O.219:- An order restraining a person from alienating certain property does not operate as a prohibition to the registering officer against the registration of a document executed by such person affecting such property. (b) If the A.P. High Court or any other Civil Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if such orders are brought to the notice of the Registering Officer 1 (2018) SCC OnLine Hyd 370 3 HCJ & RCJ WP_28646_2025 or served on the Registering Officer, the Registering Officer is estopped from going ahead with the registration." 11. Upon fair reading of S.O.219 in the light of Section 64 of CPC, this Court is of the view that it only pertains to a civil dispute between the private parties and it does not include an institutional sale under a statute. Though Section 64 comes into play only after the alienation of the property under attachment amongst the private persons, the said legal position does not create an embargo upon the Registrar to proceed with the registration of sale certificates under the SARFAESI Act as the bank is not a party to the suit and the sale is not being effected by a party to the attachment order. 14. The preponderance of judicial opinion leads to the irresistible conclusion that the sale of the mortgaged property in favour of the auction purchaser and the sale certificate under the SARFAESI Act in such circumstances is free of all encumbrances. The attachments effected subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the bank do not affect the rights of the secured creditor over the subject property. Such attachments have no impact on the sale conducted under the Act and the same ceases to have any effect or fall to the ground the moment the same is confirmed in favour of the secured creditor Bank and auction purchaser. Otherwise, those attachments would remain as a permanent taboo prejudicially affecting the marketability and title to the property even though they ceased to have any legal efficacy and thereby it becomes necessary to register the sale certificate. 15. Taking into account all these aspects and reckoning the law in the subject as discussed above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the secured creditor is entitled to succeed in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed directing the first respondent in both the writ petitions to register the sale certificates in accordance with the Registration Act.” 4 HCJ & RCJ WP_28646_2025 5. Following the ratio of the aforementioned judgment, we find that the orders of attachment relied upon by the petitioners would not affect the rights of the secured creditor over the subject property and that the Financial Institution would be entitled to sell the property, which is a secured asset in favor of an auction purchaser. 6. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. SSN