Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20701 (AP)

MUVVALA ADI LAKSHMI v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

WP/11581/2025 · 2026-01-26

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, Tuhin Kumar Gedela

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010231182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH 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: 11581/2025 Between: 1. MUVVALA ADI LAKSHMI, W/O RAMBABU, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O D.NO.6-107, AMBEDKAR COLONY, 10TH LANE, RAMNAGAR, BESIDE ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.-523001. 2. SRI MUVVALA RAMBABU, S/O. VENKATASWAMY, AGED 43 YEARS, UNEMPLOYEE, D.NO.6-107, AMBEDKAR COLONY, 10TH LANE, RAMNAGAR, BESIDE ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. - 523001. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, Rep.by its Authorized Officer cum Chief Manager, Aluru Mark, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Branch Code 64267, Vijayawada, NTR District. A.P. ...RESPONDENT 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 kindly be pleased to issue a Writ. Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondent in attempting to take possession of petitioners house i.e., in D. No. 300/ C2 A1, in an extent of 90.87 Sq. yards/ 750 Sq. feet Narasaraopet village AND Mandal, Guntur District and handover the possession to the authorized person 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.11581 of 2025 of respondent, in pursuance of the order dated 04-04-2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 219 of 2025 by the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur in appointing an Advocate Commissioner, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violative of Rule 3(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and consequently set aside the order dated 04-04- 2025, directing the respondent not to take any coercive steps and not to evict the petitioners from the subject house. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CH NAGENDRAMU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.11581 of 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Writ Petition has become infructuous and that no further orders are required to be passed. 2. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 27.01.2026 ARB 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.11581 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 11581/2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) 27.01.2026 ARB