APHC010070842026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 3987/2026 Between: 1. KOLLI DEVI, W/O K SARANGA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-25, BABU JAGDJIVANRAO, KATHERU, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENTOF FINANCIAL SERVICES, NEW DELHI. 2. THE ARYAPURAM COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, ARYAPURAM, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER ...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, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging Order in CrI.M.P No.519 of 2021, dated 27-11-2025, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) - cum - Assistant Session Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and consequential warrants issued to secure physical possession of scheduled property in the notice under section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security, Interest Act, 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.3987 of 2026 2002 obtained by the 2ND respondent bank in pursuant of Possession Notice dt.20-08-2025 issued by respondent herein in taking symbolic possession under Section 13 (4) and Rule 8(1) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests (2nd) Act 2002 though petitioner made oral representation to the 2ND respondent requesting time to discharge and sought one time settlement to pay the outstanding balance without considering the same proceeding further is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and the provisions of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Interest and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 and Rules there under and consequently to set aside the above said notices 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 pleased to suspend the Order in CrI.M.P No.519 of 2021, dated 27-11-2025, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) - cum - Assistant Session Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and consequential warrants issued to secure physical possession of scheduled property in the notice under section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security, Interest Act, 2002 obtained by the 2ND respondent bank, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VASAVI RATNA KUMARI DANDAMUDI 2. The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.3987 of 2026 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.2, who is appearing as caveator. 2. Challenging the notice issued under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as <SARFAESI Act=) to take possession of the secured asset belonging to the petitioner, who is the principal borrower, as per the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.519 of 2021, dated 27.11.2025 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division)- cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards part payment and still there is outstanding due of Rs.13,00,000/- and she is prepared to pay the sum in installments and thereby prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 and sought direction to the Bank not to take physical possession of the secured asset. 4. When there is still outstanding amount due to a tune of Rs.13,00,000/-, the respondent-bank got every right under the SARFAESI Act to proceed to take possession of the property and to sell the same for realization of the entire balance amount that is due. The petitioner cannot seek to set aside the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner has paid part of the amount due and that she is prepared to pay the balance amount in installments. Therefore, we see no valid ground to interfere and to entertain the writ petition. 5. Further, even to challenge the impugned order, the petitioner got an efficacious remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. But without approaching the Tribunal, the 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.3987 of 2026 petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. So even on that ground, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned for redressal of her grievance. 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 : 10-02-2026 BMS