Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Garre Durgamba vs The Recovery Officer I on 18 March, 2020
Author: D Ramesh
Bench: D Ramesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Writ Petition No.13205 of 2019
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar) The writ petitioner, aged about 82 years as mentioned in the writ petition, and the mother of the borrower, who has been arrayed as respondent no.3, has succeeded in preventing the respondent no.2-Bank from recovering the outstanding loan for about ten years, even though the account was declared NPA long back and thereafter, O.A.no.232 of 2011 was filed by the Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam.
2. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records in R.P.No.23 of 2016 in O.A.No.232 of 2011, on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, and declare that the orders, dated 27.8.2019, passed in I.A.No.5 of 2019 in R.P.No.23 of 2016 in O.A.No.232 of 2011 as illegal, against principles of natural justice and consequently, set aside all proceedings against the petitioner's property, i.e., all that the land admeasuring 205.75 sq. yards and building in the premises bearing H.No.9-3-75/A, near Nehru Statue, Brahmin Street, Kothapeta, Vijayawada, (hereinafter referred to as the 'schedule property') including the auction proceedings, dated 30.08.2019.
3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that she is the rightful owner and occupant of the schedule property. It has further been stated that she had raised serious objections on the recovery proceedings against the schedule property initiated by respondent No.1 in I.A.No.5 of 2019 in R.P.No.23 of 2016 in O.A.No.232 of 2011, questioning the auction proceedings scheduled on 30.08.2019. The 1st respondent, without even referring to any of the issues raised in the said application dismissed the objection petition of the petitioner, RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 2 vide orders, dated 27.08.2019. Such orders passed by the respondent no.1 are blatant error on facts and law, without jurisdiction, illegal and invalid. As the petitioner is in advanced age and in distress having exhausted all other remedies and as there is no other remedy, she had approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
4. It has been submitted that originally, the schedule property belonged to one Jaggupilla Bullemma, which was purchased by her father, Jaggupilla Reddemma, vide sale deed, dated 19.12.1952, registered as document no.2605 of 1952. Her father, Jaggupilla Reddamma, died on 06.06.1972 leaving behind the mother of the petitioner, late Mrs. Venkayamma, and the petitioner. It is further submitted that the mother of the petitioner, Mrs. Venkayamma, and the petitioner being the successors for the estate of the father of the petitioner, late Jaggupilla Reddamma, while jointly enjoying the schedule property, settled in favour of the minor son of the petitioner, that is, respondent no.3 herein, vide settlement deed, dated 21.07.1972, registered document no.2746 of 1972 of the SRO, Vijayawada. However, they specifically reserved their rights over the same by mentioning that the settlee is entitled only for the residual left over after the life time of her mother and the petitioner. After her mother's demise, she became the owner of the schedule property and enjoying it. It was claimed that in view of the settlement, she is having exclusive rights over the schedule property, to hold the same and enjoy the same during her lifetime and the respondent no.3 (her son) was entitled only after her to the extent of left over. She claimed that the respondent No.3 is not competent to create any charge/mortgage by depositing the title deeds to deal with the property in any manner. She also claimed that she was abandoned by respondent no.3 since August, 2007. She was staying separately and managing her expenses from rental income from the schedule property. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.2 bank officials, on 04.09.2010, RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 3 initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act') for recovery of the amount from their borrower, respondent no.4, and claimed mortgage through respondent No.3 vide registered deposit of title deeds, document No.5404 of 2008 against the property of the petitioner. It has further been stated in the writ petition that the respondent No.2 Bank claimed that they have sanctioned loan limits to their borrower, respondent No.4, i.e., OCC limit of Rs.40 lakhs, TL for Rs.34.3 lakhs, on 05.11.2008, and Vehicle Loan of Rs.2.36 lakhs on 01.09.2008, against personal guarantee of its partners, hypothecation of movable assets including stocks, machinery and vehicle, personal guarantee of its partners and collateral security of the properties including petitioner's property through respondent no.3. As per the facts disclosed in the writ petition itself, the respondent Bank declared the said account NPA and thereafter, filed O.A.no.232 of 2011 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, claiming Rs.1,11,98,595.13 paise (Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundredand Ninety Five and Thirteen paise) [Rs.68,61,103/- under OCC limit account, Rs.43,37,491.29 ps in Term Loan Account] and on 15.09.2017, recovery certificate was obtained by the Bank. The petitioner further states that the respondent no.2-Bank simultaneously initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act against the petitioner's property and thereafter, she had filed S.A.No.3 of 2013, on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. However, the said S.A.No.3 of 2013 was finally disposed of, on 15.09.2017, and it was observed that the Tribunal cannot decide title dispute in S.A. It has been admitted by the petitioner that she had also filed a suit, i.e., O.S.no.410 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for declaration and cancellation of mortgage, also sought for perpetual injunction against the respondent Bank and respondent no.3, in which initially, injunction was granted; however, RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 4 subsequently, on 07.09.2015, the suit was dismissed for default. As per the facts disclosed in the writ petition, it is further stated that the petitioner subsequently filed civil suit, vide O.S.No.881 of 2017, on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in which respondent No.2/bank was shown as 1st defendant and respondent No.3 (son of the petitioner) was also arrayed as defendant no.2. In the said suit, the petitioner sought for a declaration of mortgage as null and void and also sought for perpetual injunction against the respondents. However, by order, dated 03.05.2019, the said suit was rejected on the principle of res judicata. It has been claimed that the petitioner has challenged the said order in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Krishna, at Vijayawada. According to the petitioner, in the writ petition, after the order was passed in O.A.no.232 of 2011, the respondent No.1, i.e., the Recovery Officer, initiated recovery proceedings against the immovable property and as such before the Recovery Officer, the petitioner filed IR No.460 of 2018, on 09.10.2018, seeking stay of the proceedings and the same was dismissed on 17.06.2019. Thereafter, respondent no.1/Recovery Officer proceeded further and issued proclamation of sale-cum-E-auction on 06.07.2019, against the schedule property for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,61,64,718.41 ps., with interest @ 12.50% per annum. Subsequently, the petitioner, on 05.08.2019, filed I.A.No.5 of 2019 in R.P.no.23 of 2016 in O.A.No.232 of 2011 before the Recovery Officer to recall the attachment order. However, by order, dated 27.08.2019, the said petition was dismissed, which has been challenged in the present writ petition.
5. Heard Sri Ch.Srinivasa Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Rajasekhar Kashyap, learned counsel, assisted by Ms. Hela Mounica, learned counsel for respondent no.2 Bank.
6. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.no.1 of 2019, for stay of all proceedings against the RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 5 petitioner's property. The writ petition was taken up on 13.09.2019. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, while directing for issuance of notice to respondents, stayed all further proceedings so far as the schedule property till 25.10.2019, and since then, the interim order is continuing till date.
7. In the case, after receipt of notice, the respondent Bank filed a stay vacate petition, vide I.A.No.2 of 2019 arraying the petitioner of the present writ petition as respondent no.1, supported with an affidavit in the form of counter on behalf of the bank. It has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the stay vacate petition that the writ petitioner is a third party to the recovery proceedings and the writ petition was filed only to drag on the proceedings at the belated stage. It has further been contended that the application vide IR no.460 of 2018 was disposed of on 17.06.2019, and on the same cause of action, I.A.No.5 of 2019 was filed for the self same relief and the same was dismissed by the Recovery Officer. In paragraph (10) of the counter affidavit filed in support of the stay vacate petition, a stand was taken by the Bank that in pursuance of the E-auction notice by the Recovery Officer, under R.P.No.23 of 2016, auction was conducted on 30.08.2019, and the said auction was confirmed in the name of one T.Indira Gupta and N.Hemanth Chandra Gupta being the Highest bidders for an amount of Rs.1,31,00,000 and the auction was confirmed in their favour and the party had paid 25% of the bid amount on the day, which was communicated to the Recovery Officer by letter, dated 16.09.2019. The highest bidder has paid the sale amount of Rs.98,25,000/-. Thus, the total bid amount was paid and communicated to the Recovery Officer after confirmation of sale on 16.09.2019. Except issuance of Sale Certificate to the highest bidder, rest of the proceedings were already over by the time the orders were served on the respondent no.2. It has further been claimed that the petitioner has initiated malicious proceedings, which she was doing since 2013 itself. Besides objecting the writ petition on merits, it RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 6 was also contended in the counter affidavit in support of the stay vacate petition that the writ petition was itself not maintainable and petitioner, instead of moving the Appellate Authority/Tribunal against the orders passed in I.A.no.5 of 2019, had directly approached this Court with unclean hands. It has also been contended in the counter affidavit that when the property was given as security, the bank officials and the valuer had visited and measured the building in the presence of the petitioner and her son (respondent no.3) and the petitioner had full knowledge about giving the property as security and whenever the bank officials visited the premises when the loan amount was not paid, the petitioner and respondent No.3 were present and have been pleading for time to regularize the account. As such, since the date of purchase, the petitioner was well aware of giving the property as security to the respondent Bank. It has also been contended in the counter affidavit that the petitioner and her son obtained permission from the municipal authorities in the year 1991 and since then both the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent/ mortgagor were residing jointly in the same address and while demanding the outstanding amounts, notices under Sections 13(2) & 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the OA notices were all sent to the same address; and, at no point of time, the petitioner raised any objection and only after filing of O.A.No.232 of 2011 by the Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner filed S.A.No.3 of 2013 in order to defraud the legitimate right of the bank. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was indicated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner and respondent no.1 are in collusion. A prayer was made for vacating the stay order. This petition was filed on 24.09.2019. However, even thereafter, the matter remained pending.
8. After filing of the stay vacate petition with counter affidavit, a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioner and in paragraph No.4.10 of the rejoinder, the petitioner had dealt with the statement made in paragraph no.10 of the RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 7 counter affidavit filed along with the stay vacate petition, wherein it was indicated that after the E-auction notice, auction was conducted on 30.08.2019 in which one T.Indira Gupta and N.Hemanth Chandra Gupta became the highest bidders for an amount of Rs.1,31,00,000 and they deposited the entire amount and sale was confirmed. It is appropriate to mention here that despite the fact that the petitioner came to know that the property was already sold in an auction to the highest bidder, to the reasons best known to her, she had preferred not to file any petition to implead them as parties in the present writ petition.
9. After filing of the stay vacate petition and rejoinder, the matter was taken up before this Court and thereafter, as directed, a detailed counter affidavit was also filed by the Bank and after hearing the parties, finally on 10.02.2019, orders were reserved.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of referring to the facts in the writ petition, emphatically argued that though in favour of respondent no.3, a registered gift deed was executed, but the right of respondent no.3 was to accrue only after the death of the petitioner. In the gift deed, there was recital to such extent. Accordingly, it has been argued that the mortgage of the schedule property by respondent no.3 was itself illegal; and, this was the reason that the petitioner filed a suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction for declaring the mortgage as void. However, the said suit was dismissed for default. Subsequently, the petitioner again filed a suit, which was dismissed on the principle of res judicata and thereafter, he filed an appeal against the said order.
11. Regarding questioning the right of respondent no.3 in mortgaging the schedule property, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in S.Sarojini Amma v. Velayudhan Pillai RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 8 Sreekumar1; and, he has referred to paragraph (15) of the judgment, which is quoted herein below:
"A conditional gift with no recital of acceptance and no evidence in proof of acceptance, where possession remains with the donor as long as he is alive, does not become complete during lifetime of the donor. When a gift is incomplete and title remains with the donor the deed of gift might be cancelled."
Taking a clue from the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the recital in the gift deed, her son, respondent no.3, was not entitled to mortgage the property in question during the life time of the petitioner. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the impugned order.
12. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent Bank has argued that the petitioner has maliciously succeeded in preventing the Bank from recovering the outstanding loan amount, which is public money, since last about ten years. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that after the loan account was declared NPA, in the year 2011 itself the Bank had filed O.A.no.232 of 2011 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in which despite the fact that the recovery certificate was issued, one way or the other, recovery of the same was delayed. It has also been argued that frivolous petitions were being filed by the petitioner sometime before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, some time before the Recovery Officer and also before the Civil Court. It has been argued that the petitioner, with an intent to delay the recovery proceedings, i.e., proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, had initially filed S.A.No.3 of 2013 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. However, the same was not entertained and by detailed reasons, it was dismissed on 15.09.2017. However, despite the 1 2018 SCC Online SC 2200 RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 9 fact that S.A filed by the petitioner was rejected on 15.09.2017, she never challenged the said order. Instead, she filed O.S.No.410 of 2013 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for declaration and cancellation of mortgage and also for perpetual injunction against the respondent No.2-Bank and respondent no.3, her son, in which initially, an interim order was granted. However, finally, on 07.09.2015, the suit was dismissed for default. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the said order was also not challenged nor even any petition was filed for restoration of the same. But, at the belated stage, i.e., in the year 2017, she filed another suit, vide O.S.No.881 of 2017, on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in which the 2nd respondent-Bank was shown as defendant No.1 and the petitioner arrayed her son, who is respondent no.3 in the present writ petition, as defendant No.2. The said suit was filed again for declaration of mortgage as null and void, which too, stood dismissed on 03.05.2019, on the principle of res judicata. Of course, the judgment in the said suit has been challenged by the petitioner; in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Krishna, at Vijayawada. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, from the conduct of the petitioner itself, it is evident that she was only interested in delaying the recovery proceeding. According to the learned counsel, even against the impugned order, there is a statutory provision of appeal. However, the petitioner has approached this Court directly by filing the present writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the bank, the Writ Petition is neither having any merit nor it is maintainable before this Court. Learned counsel for the Bank has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors2 and submits that when a statutory remedy is available, one may not be allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that in the decision in Satyawati Tondon (2 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically 2 2010 (8) SCC 110 RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 10 dealt with the provisions of SARFAESI Act and was of the view that in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the Courts/High Court should refrain from interference since the recovery of the loan amount relates to recovery of public fund. He has also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Another v. Mathew K.C.3
13. Besides hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have examined the material available on record.
14. On the basis of the pleadings, it is not in dispute that the property in question is the secured property since the son of the petitioner had mortgaged the schedule property for issuance of loan and it was availed. However, since repayment of loan was irregular, the account was declared NPA, and thereafter, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated. It is not disputed that the Bank had filed in the year 2011 itself, an application, vide O.A.No.232 of 2011. It is also not in dispute that recovery certificate was also issued in favour of the Bank and finally, before the interim order was passed by this Court on the basis of E-auction, auction was held in which one T.Indira Gupta and N.Hemanth Chandra Gupta stood as highest bidders; and, the auction was confirmed in their favour and 25% of the bid amount was paid prior to passing of the impugned order itself. As per the counter affidavit filed in the stay vacate petition, those facts have categorically been dealt with in paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit, which is reproduced herein below:
'10) I submit that in pursuance of the E-auction taken up by the Recovery Officer under R.P.23/2016, the auction was conducted on 30-08-2019 and the said auction was conformed in the name of T.Indira Gupta and N.Hemanth Chandra Gupta being the Highest bidders for an amount of Rs.1,31,00,000 and the auction was conformed in their favour and the party has paid 25% of the amount day which was communicated to the Recovery Officer and later on 16-09-2019 the highest bidder has paid the balance amount of 3 2018 (3) SCC 85 RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 11 Rs.98,25,000/-, thus, the total bid amount was paid and communicated to the Recovery Officer after confirmation of the sale on 16-09-2019. I submit that except the issue of Sale Certificate to the Highest bidder, rest of the proceedings are already over by the time the orders were served on this petitioner/2nd respondent.'
15. The petitioner also filed rejoinder to this affidavit and this fact has been dealt with in paragraph [4.10] of the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, which is dated 16.10.2019. However, to the reasons best known to the petitioner, the petitioner did not take any steps for impleading the highest bidders as parties in the present writ petition; and as such, on the ground of misjoinder of parties itself, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.
16. The petitioner in the writ petition has admitted that she had filed S.A.No.3 of 2013 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The learned Tribunal, discussing the entire case held in paragraph no.17 of the order, which is running page no.37, that the applicant (petitioner of the present case) failed to establish that the 1st respondent had not followed SARFAESI Act and violated the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. However, it was further observed that since the applicant had claimed that she is the title holder of the schedule mentioned property, the Tribunal cannot decide the title or ownership in the matter. Despite the fact that SA filed by the petitioner was rejected on 15.09.2017, she allowed the said order to attain its finality. She never challenged the said order, meaning thereby that she herself waived whatever claim she was having. After the said order had attained its finality, the petitioner was restrained to file any further petitions. Even thereafter, she filed petitions and petitions. The petitioner has admitted that she had filed a suit in O.S.No.410 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for declaration and cancellation of mortgage and also sought for perpetual injunction against the 2nd respondent Bank and her son, respondent no.3. In the said suit, initially she got an injunction order. However, RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 12 subsequently, the suit was allowed to be dismissed for default on 07.09.2019. Despite the fact that the suit was dismissed for default, on 07.09.2019, the petitioner again allowed the said order to attain its finality. She neither took any steps for restoration of the suit nor challenged the said order. In consequence of delaying the recovery proceedings, in the year 2017, again the petitioner filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.881 of 2017, which was dragged upto 2019; and, finally, on 03.05.2019, the same was rejected on the principle of res judicata. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner in paragraph No.[4.11] of the writ petition. Of course, she had claimed that she had filed an appeal. In paragraph [4.15], the petitioner herself has stated that, on 09.10.2018, she had filed petition, vide I.R.No.460 of 2018, before the Recovery Officer, seeking stay of proceedings, which stood dismissed, vide order, dated 17.06.2019. After rejection of the said petition, E-auction notice, dated 06.07.2019, was issued and again thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.5 of 2019, which was dismissed on 27.08.2019, and the same has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
17. We have examined the impugned order and after going through the same, it is evident that the said order had cursorily dealt with all the steps taken by the petitioner for frustrating the recovery proceedings. The Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to incorporate the impugned order, herein below:
'Smt. G.Durgamba filed a claim petition bearing No.IR (RP) 460/2018 dated 09-10-2018 seeking directions for stay of all further proceedings relating to the sale of the schedule property in RP 23/2016 in OA 232/2011 and stated that originally the schedule property belong to one J.Reddamma purchased the same from J.Bullemma under a registered sale deed vide No.2605/1952 and the said J.Reddamma died on 06-06-1972 intestate leaving behind his wife, i.e., Venkayamma and one daughter Garre Durgamba as Class I heirs whom were the successors of the estate of the late J.Reddemma.
RK J & DR, J
W.P.No.13205 of 2019
13
That Smt. G.Durgamba along with Smt. J.Venkayamma
executed a gift settlement deed in favour of the Garre Durga Prasad Rao (CDR-4) vide registered document no.2746/1972.
That Smt. G.Durgamba submits that the recital of the document discloses that Smt. J.Venkayamma and G.Durgamba have reserved life interest, i.e. right to enjoy the property till their life and after them, vested right to enjoy by the donee, i.e., Garre Vara Prasad Rao (CDR-4) with absolute rights. To be precise the settlement done, i.e., Garre Vara Prasad Rao (CDR-4) at present has no right, title, interest or possession over the schedule property. The contents of the settlement deed are clear i.e., that as long as the donors alive, the donee has no right and cannot deal with schedule property in any manner whatsoever.
Smt. G.Durgamba submits that the first respondent bank has tried to dispossess her from the schedule property under the guise of SARFAESI Act, by informing that her son, i.e., Garre Vara Prasad Rao, 4th respondent herein stood as guarantor for the loan availed by the 2nd respondent and mortgaged the schedule property. Smt. G.Durgamba filed SA 3/2013 on the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and obtained interim stay of proceedings. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the application on 15-09-2017 with an observation that to approach the proper forum for getting the rights declared as Hon'ble Tribunal cannot decide because of limited jurisdiction.
She further submits that she has filed a case for declaration with permanent injunction vide suit bearing No. OS 881/2017 in IA 590/2017 on the file of VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and the Hon'ble VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, was pleased to pass interim injunction directing the first respondent bank not to dispossess the Garre Durgamba till 27-12-2018.
She submits that there is fraud in accepting document for security by the first respondent Bank and before accepting the security it is bounden duty of the first respondent Bank to obtain valid legal opinion. There is no valid mortgage with the first respondent bank, as without obtaining valid opinion, it is null and void according to Transfer of Property Act."
Thus, the above schedule property is under the Court dispute of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in OA 881/2017 in IA 590/2017. The CHB filed their counter dated 21-02-2019 stated that the mortgage created by 4th respondent is valid and said that 4th respondent and claim petitioner are son and mother respectively and Gift was made in the year 1972 and they have obtained permission RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 14 from the municipality in the year 1990 for construction thereon and both the claim petitioner/4th respondent are residing in the same address and the claim petitioner has not raised any objection till OA 232/2011 is filed before this Tribunal and refused to consider the plea of claim petitioner and denied that the mortgage is fraudulent in collusion with the Bank officials by 4th respondent as she has not initiated any criminal action in this regard as also the Interim orders of the Civil Court in IA 590/2017 are only temporary in nature and not of conclusive and finality of the title in respect of the schedule of property as also the claim petitioner has not shown the necessary parties in the civil suit in OA 881/2017. The same is void both under the law and facts. Ld. Counsel for the CHB 27-05-2019 informed the Tribunal that the plaint in OA 881/2017 is rejected by the Hon'ble VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and CH Bank filed a case status search report of the e-Courts dated 24-5-2019. Thus, there is no litigation pending in respect of the schedule of property and the claim of the claim petitioner, Smt. Garre Durgamba is not sustained due to rejection of the plaint by the Hon'ble Civil Court and the claim petitioner miserably failed to obtain any order in getting her rights declared by proper form as observed in SA 3/2013 by Hon'ble DRT, Visakhapatnam.' The fact remains that after the rejection of I.A.No.5 of 2019, auction was already held in which sale was confirmed in favour of the highest bidder, which is evident from the statement made in paragraph no.10 of the counter affidavit filed in support of the stay vacate petition.
18. In view of the aforesaid facts, which we have discussed herein above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition nor the petitioner was entitled to directly approach this Court by way of invoking the writ jurisdiction. Such interference by the High Court has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Against the impugned order, which was passed by the Recovery Officer, as per Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, there was provision of appeal. The petitioner by way of bypassing the appellate jurisdiction had directly approached this Court and on this ground itself, at the very inception, the writ petition was required to be RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 15 rejected. However, in this case, earlier, an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner and on the strength of the interim order, the writ petition was kept pending here. The writ petition neither has got any merit nor was required to be entertained on the ground of statutory remedy available to the petitioner.
19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order granted earlier shall automatically stand vacated.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ RAKESH KUMAR, J _____________ D.RAMESH, J 18th March, 2020 RAR RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 16 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH Writ Petition No.13205 of 2019 (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar) RAR DATED: 18-03-2020 RK J & DR, J W.P.No.13205 of 2019 17