APHC010347602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1733/2025 Between: 1. SYED ERSHAD AHMED, S/O. SAYYED AHAMAD, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 35YRS, 2. KHAMAR JAHAN,, D/O. SAYYED AHAMAD, MUSLIM AGED ABOUT 37 YRS. 3. SHAHELAANJUM,, D/O. SAYYED AHAMAD, W/O. KHAJA MOINUDDIN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 40 YRS. 4. GOWHER JAHAN,, D/O. SAYYED AHAMAD, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 42YRS, ALL ARE R/O. D.NO. 18-19-127, BARAIMAMPANJA STREET, PONNUR ROAD, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. NOORJAHAN BEGUM, W/O ABDUL SALAM, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 70 YRS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H.NO. 14-4-10, PENSION LINE. WARD NO. 19, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DIST 2. ABDUL RAFI, S/O. ABDUL SALAM, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. 17-23-17/4, RAILWAY COLONY, RCM SCHOOL STREET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. 3. RAZIA SULTHANA, W/O. ABDUL RAHEEM, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 41 YRS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H.NO. 14-4-10, PENSION 2 LINE. WARD NO. 19, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DIST. 4. ABDUL RAZAK, S/O. MOHAMMAD YAKUB, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 40 YRS, BUSINESS. 5. ABDUL RIZWAN, S/O. MOHAMMAD YAKUB, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 35 YRS. AUTO DRIVER, 6. ABDUL IRFAN, S/O. MOHAMMAD YAKUB, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 33 YRS. PVT. EMPLOYEE SI. 4 TO 6 ARE R/O. LINE, HUSSAIN NAGAR NEAR ANDHRA MUSLIM COLLEGE, PONNUR ROAD, GUNTUR. 7. ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O. MOHAMMAD YAKUB, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 31 YRS. PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO. 17-8-51, 5TH LINE, ANANDPET, GUNTUR. 8. KORRAPATI LAKSHMI NARAYANA, S/O. VENKAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YRS. BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO. 402, HARIPRIYA RESIDENCY 3RD LINE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR. 9. NELAKUDUTI ANURADHA, W/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YRS, H/WIFE, R/O. D.NO.3-29-8/16, 3RD LINE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR. 10. MUTTAVARAPU MADAN MOHAN, S/O. SEETA RAMAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YRS, BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.7-85/1, PATHURU VILLAGE, EDIAPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 11. SHAIK SAMBAIAH, . S/O. MASTAN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YRS. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.23-4-15, NEAR RIY GATE NIRMALA NAGAR, ATCHAMPET ROAD, SATTENAPALLI, GUNTUR DIST. 12. KORRAPATI SUBBAYAMMA, , W/O LAKSHMI NARAYANA, HINDU, AGE 52 YRS, H/W, R/O FLAT NO. 402, HARIPRIYA RESIDENCY, 3RD LINE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR. RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 13. BANK OF BARODA, , REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BARODA BHAVAN, RC DUTT ROAD, AKAPURI, BARODA, 3 GUJARAT. . 14. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, LAKSHMIPURAM BRANCH, GUNTUR. 15. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, . BANK OF BARODA, LAKSHMIPURAM BRANCH, GUNTUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to Set aside the order in I.A No.151/2025 in O.S 16/2017, dated 19.06.2025 on the file of the Court The V Addl. District and Sessions Judge -Cum-SpI Judge For Trail Of Offences Against Women, Guntur dismissing the implead petition, allow I.A. No. 151/2025 and permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to implead the proposed respondents/Bank of Baroda and its officials as defendants 13 to 15 in O.S. No. 16/2017 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 16 of 2017, on the file of The Court The V Addl. District & Sessions Judge -Cum-SpI Judge For Trail Of Offences Against Women, Guntur and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 to vacate the interim orders dated 14.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in CRP.No.1733 of 2025 and dismiss the civil revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M RAVIKANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. HABIBULLA SHAIK 4 2. PONNAM RAVINDRA BABU 3. The Court made the following: ORDER: Assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, in I.A.No.151 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2017, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, respondent Nos.1 to 12 herein are the defendants and respondent Nos.13 to 15 are the proposed parties in the above said suit. 3. The facts that lead to filing of this Civil Revision Petition are: The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Guntur, for cancellation of sale deeds executed by defendant Nos.1 to 7 in favour of defendant Nos.8 to 12, for permanent injunction restraining the 11th defendant from in any way causing sale deed/alienation basing on the GPA dated 11.03.2014 and for costs of the suit. The petitioners/plaintiffs are claiming to be the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and that defendant Nos.8 to 12, without having any title over the suit schedule property, fraudulently created a mortgage deed in favour of the bank and obtained 5 loan wherein the bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings for taking possession over the mortagaged property which belongs to the petitioners/plaintiffs. 4. The petitioners/plaintiffs, after coming to know about the fradualent transaction made by defendant Nos.1 to 8, filed W.P.No.18195 of 2021 and this Court, on 26.08.2021 disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioners/plaintiffs got filed Securitization Application vide S.A.No.317 of 2021 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, and the same was dismissed on 05.03.2025 duly observing that the suit filed by the petitioner vide O.S.No.16 of 2017 was not filed to cancel the mortagage deed and further, the plaintiff did not implead the bank as the party defendant. 5. In the said circumstances, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an interlocutory application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC read with Section 29 of Civil Rules of Practice vide I.A.No.151 of 2025 to implead the bank as well as the Branch Manager and the Authorized Officer as party defendant Nos.13 to 15 as they are also proper and necessary parties to the suit. 6 6. After hearing the parties, the Court below, by order dated 19.06.2025, dismissed the said application. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 7. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Ravikanth Reddy, learned assistant counsel, Sri Ponnam Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the respondent bank and Sri Shaik Habibulla, learned counsel for the respondent No.9. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application and the grounds of the revision submitted that the Court below miserably failed to see the purport of Order I Rule 10(2) in right perspective. The defendant Nos.8 to 12, who are not having title at all to the suit schedule property, executed a mortagage deed in favour of the proposed party-bank and obtained loan. The petitioners, coming to know about the same, approached this Court by way of W.P.No.18195 of 2021 and upon the directions of this Court filed S.A.No.317 of 2025 before the DRT, Visakhapatnam, duly bringing it to the notice of the Tribunal that the mortgaged property belongs to the petitioner and the bank cannot proceed with the SARFAESI proceedings. He further submitted that the Tribunal dismissed the said application holding that the petitioners did not implead the bank as party defendants to the suit filed by them. Even 7 otherwise, the scope of the tribunal is very limited and it cannot decide the title over the property in question. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that when defendant Nos.8 to 12, by playing fraud, obtained loan from the bank by mortagaging the suit schedule property, the bank is also a proper and necessary party to the suit, as such, if the said application is not allowed and the bank is not brought on record as party defendant, the suit cannot be decided in an effective manner and further, it leads to multifarious litigation. He further submitted that the Court below failed to take due note of the said aspect and erroneously dismissed the I.A., as such, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants in one voice contended that the bank is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit. Further, the mortagage deed was not questioned in the suit. Once the mortagage deed was not questioned, the bank need not be brought on record as party defendant. The Court below has rightly dismissed the said application and needs no interference of this Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition. 11. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8 12. Defendant Nos.8 to 12, basing on the sale deeds, which are more clearly stated in the plaint, mortagaged with the bank and obtained loan and as they failed to pay the loan amount, in order to recover the same, the bank invoked SARFAESI proceedings. It is not in dispute that the mortagaged property and the suit schedule property are one and the same. The petitioner/plaintiff, claiming title over the suit schedule property, approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A.No.317 of 2021. The Tribunal dismissed the said application by its order dated 05.03.2025 duly holding that the mortgage deed has not been cancelled by any competent civil Court and also noting that the bank was not made a party in the civil suit. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present interlocutory application to bring the bank as party defendants to the suit. 13. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding “in respect of any matter which Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine…” Hence, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is only ousted in respect of those matters which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the SARFAESI Act to determine. The SARFAESI Act confers certain powers upon the Debts Recovery Tribunal by virtue of the following sections: Sections 5(5), 13(10), 17 and 19. Except for Section 17, as 9 such none of the other sections referred to above are relevant for the purposes of this matter. 14. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that under the scheme of the SARFAESI Act narrated above, it is apparent that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the question whether persons other than the mortgager had title in the mortgaged property. In that context the validity of the sale deed of a property mortgaged with the Central Bank of India cannot be decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. If the sale deed is held to be wholly or partially invalid it will immediately affect the validity of the mortgage of that property. The jurisdiction of civil court is ousted in respect of matters which the Debts Recovery Tribunal is empowered to decide. Absence of a provision to enable the Debts Recovery Tribunal for holding an enquiry on a particular question is indicative that jurisdiction of civil courts on that question is not excluded. The above question relating to the validity of the sale deed and its consequent effect on the mortgage are matters which the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not empowered to decide. The provision for appeal under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by "any person" does not oust the jurisdiction of civil court on matters which cannot be decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide these matters cannot be held to be ousted under section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. 10 15. In the said view of the fact, the bank can also come within the ambit of proper and necessary party. The Court below did not look into these aspects while dealing with the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff and erroneously dismissed. The bank is necessary party for better adjudication of the suits to resolve the controversy involved in the suit, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 16. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent-bank submitted that as the suit is of the year 2017 and public money is also involved in the suit, a direction may be given to the trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. As such, being an exceptional case, this Court is inclined to direct the trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and the parties should cooperate with the trial. 17. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 13.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.151 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 by the V Additional District Judge, Offences Against Women, Guntur is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.151 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 09th March, 2026 RKS