APHC010036942026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 2337/2026 Between: 1. MITAPALLI PURUSHOTHAM, S/O VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO23-11-117, SATYANARAYANA PURAM VIJAYAWADA - 520011, NTR DISTRICT, AP. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, M/S. UNION BANK OF INDIA, NAGESWRARAO PANTULU ROAD, SATYA NARAYAN PURAM VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, AP - 520011. MOBILE NO 8591405041, UBIN0805041 UNIONBANKOF INDIA.BANK 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. UNION BANK OF INDIA, NAGESWRARAO PANTULU ROAD, SATYA NARAYAN PURAM VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, AP - 520011. 3. MAJETI SURESH KUMAR, S/O RAMA SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO 23-27-24, RANAPRATAP STREET, SATYANARAYANA PURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520011, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. MAJETI LAKSHMI, W/O SURESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO23-27-24, RANAPRATAP STREET, SATYANARAYANA PURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520011, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.2337 of 2026 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toPleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents sale of immovable properties by way of E-auction sale Notice under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act.2002 R/w proviso to U/s 13(4) Rules R/w 8 of the Security Interest ( Enforcement) Rules 2002 for action of immovable property situated in R S No 116-2, Door No23-27-24, Ranapratap Street, Satyanarayana Puram, Vijayawada-520011, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh in Municipal ward No13, New Assessment No126057 for an extent of 196.172 Square Yards house site with G3 building is arbitrary, illegal and violation of the Act and also violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently same as above and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JONNALAGADDA U BHASKARAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.2337 of 2026 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The 3rd respondent is the principal borrower. As he has committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the respondent-bank has initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and sold away the secured asset in the auction that was held on 28.01.2026. The further process relating to the said sale is pending. 3. The petitioner is the third party to the said loan transaction. He claims to have lent amount to the 3rd respondent-borrower under a promissory note and, for recovery of the said amount, he has filed a suit in the Civil Court and obtained an order of attachment before judgment. Therefore, he has challenged the auction held by the bank on the ground that the auction was held during the subsistence of the order of attachment before judgment passed by the competent Civil Court. 4. Admittedly, the mortgage of the secured asset in favour of the bank is prior in point of time. After the subject property was mortgaged to the bank by the 3rd respondent-borrower, the said order of attachment before judgment was obtained by the petitioner from the Civil Court. So the mortgage in favour of the bank which is prior in point of time will prevail. The order of attachment before judgment will not come in the way of the bank to sell the secured asset for realization of the due amount. 5. Therefore, if there is any excess amount left out of the sale proceeds after adjusting the same towards the money due to the bank, the petitioner can claim the same. But he cannot challenge the auction held by the bank on the basis of the order of attachment before judgment obtained by him. Therefore, we see no valid ground to entertain the writ petition. 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.2337 of 2026 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pursue his remedy to recover the amount due to him under the promissory note from the balance sale proceeds by initiating appropriate proceedings to that effect as per law before the appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J ________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 29-01-2026 BMS