The High Court · 2025

10. It4r.Burugu Satish Reddy, S/o.Sri Burugu Narsi Reddy H.No.3-19, Renikunta, Nalgonda, Telangana . ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petilion, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt.28.O5.2025, passed in the present Vy'rit Petition No.15369 ot 2025, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI AVINASH DESAI, ADVOCATE SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI P.V.SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI B. SHIVA RAM SHARMA (SC FOR CANARA BANK) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 W.P.NO:24372 OF 2025 Between: Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Ganesh Narayan Agarwal, Aged about. 54 Years, Occ.Business, Rlo.21-3-75176, Cehlapura, Kasarhatta, Hyderabad, Telangana. .....PETITIONER AND

1. M/s. Canara 8ank, Rep by its Authorized Officer, ARNI Branch - 1, 3rd Floor, Circle Officr-. Building. H No.10-3-163 and 163/4, Plot \c 85, Survey N0.025. Beslde Rail IrJrl:ya nr Secundrabad'500026.

2. 1r,,1,'s. Nlansarovai- Pearls (lndia) Private Limited, H.No..l'-6-475, Ganclhr Bazar, Cha rkarran, Hyderabad.

3. fvlr-. Satyajeet Agarwal. S/o. Late Kedarnath Agarwal. ,\ged 58 years. Occ. lv'lanagrng Dire.tor. R/o.H.No.3-6-496/1, Street No.6. llimayathnagar. Hyderabad.

4. It4i-s. Vijayalaxmi Agarwal, W/o Satyajeet Agarwal, age d about 54 years, Occ.Busines R,'o.H.No 3-6-496/1 , Street No.6, Behind l\4aru Show Roonr Himayathnagar'. Hyderabad-500029.

5. lvlr. Krishna Agarwal. Sio Satyajeet Agarwal, Aged about 28 years, Occ Business. R/c.H.No 3-6-496/1 , Street No.6, Behind [t4aru Show Room Himayathnergar. Hyderabad-500029.

6. l\4rs. Chinkey Agarwal. W/o Adarsh Kedia, Aged aboul :JB years. Occ. House Wife. R/o.H No.5-3-98'1 . Fasi Jung Lane, Osmangunl. Hyderabad- 500012.

7. lt/r. Pannalal Agarwal, S/o. Late N,4ohanlal Agarwal, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Business R/o H.Nc.21-1-898, Ghansi Bazar, Chr:rminar, Hyderabad- 500002 B. lv{rs. Vidya Devi. W/o Late lVlohanlal Agarwal, Aged al,out 70 years. Occ. House Wife R,o.H.No.21-1-898, Ghansi Bazar, Charnrrnar, Hyderabad- 500002 9 I\,4 r. Kodava.h Urrla, S/o. Redya, Aged about 42 yearc Occ. Business, R/o.H.No 9 t I Palmakole, K.V. Rangareddy, Shamshacad. Teiangana. 10 Canara Bark Rep.by its Authorized Officer, ARltzl Bran:h-1. 3d Floor, Crrcle Office Buiid ng. H No 10-3-163 and 163/A, PIot No.85 Survey No.625, Beside Rail Nilaya nr. Secu ndera bad -50002 6. 1 f . ivlr. Pradeelr I(unrar Agarwal, S/o Ganesh Narayan Aqlarwal R/o.H.no 21-3-

75176. Chelrpura, Kasarhatta, Hyderabad, Telangana

12. l\.,1r. Burugu Satish Reddy, Sio. Sri Burugu Narsi Reddv H.No.3-19, Renikunta, Nalgonda, Telangana (Highest Bidder for Schedule K Property) (Respondent Nos.2 to 12 are impleaded as per Co. dt. 21-08-2025 Vide lA No.2 of 2025 in W P No.24372 of 2025) ....,RESPONDENTS Petition UnCer Article 226 of the Constitutron of lndra praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, thr: High Court may be pleased to issue the direction or directions, more particularly in the nature of writ of l\,4andamus declaring the action of the Respondent Bank in not delivering the physical possession of the property bearing Shop No 20, situated at ground Floor of Bhagyalaxmi (lcmmercial Complex, admeasuring 16:2.50 Sq.ft situated at Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad as per the registered Sale Certifrcate bearing Document No.1250 of 2023, d1.12 06.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, against Art.3004 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent Bank to deliver the physical possession of the property bearing Shop No.20, situated at ground FIoor of Bhagyalaxmi commercial Complex, admeasuring 162 50 Sq.ft situated at Gulzar Hooz, Hyderabad to the Petitioner, in the interest of lustice. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to direcl the Respondent Bank to delrver the physical possession of the property bearing Shop No.20, situated at ground Floor of Bhagyalaxmi Commercial Complex, admeasuring 162.50 S.ft situated at Gulzar Houz. Hyderabad to the petrtroner. in interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHARAD SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI B.SHIVA RAM SHARMA (SC FOR CANARA BANK) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 12:. -- The Court made the following COMMON ORDER TH I.] HO\' B I, I'- J USI'I CE N,IOUSH UNTI Bt I,\ I'I..\CI I,\II\ A AND HON,I}LE JTTS.I.ICE GADI PRAVI.,I.-\ KTINI,\IT ,I-I{E \\'RI'l Pl'-'l'I-tIO\ Nos.15369 and 2437) ttf 2{125 (]O\I}ION ORDI.-II: I1,,'t Ittrrt ltlr'.hL-stit<' (iutIi I'rut t't'tt 1.,'rtnttr't Sincc. tlie iJsrrcs raise(l in both t.hc \\'nt Pctiti )ris arc onc and thc sirrre. thcv are bcing rlispo:ccl ol'bV this cort.tt.non ortlcr \\'.P.n'o. I 5369 o f 2025

2. This Writ l)ctition is Illc'd bv the petitioncrs principal bonorvcrs assailing the juclrnrcnt datc(l 05.01.1025 passed rn Al,peal No.20 o1202.1 by tlie l)cbts Itce()\'cr'),.\ppcllatc lribunal at Kolkatl (DRAI'), which is prcl'erred asainst tlrc orrlel datcd 08-0 I-2024 in Rer i-'ri' I'etrtion No.3 ol' l02l u hich u as lllctl against the courlron ordcr cured 22.05.2023 irr Sccr,rritizatitrn Application (SA ) No.87 o1'201 1 and Inrnst-er Sccuritization Application (TS.\) No.-l ol' 2021 (Old S.A.No.42ilr)li) passcd by thc Dcbts [(ecor cr', l r.ibLrnal-]. ll1'dcrabad (Dl(-t ) W.P.No.2.1372 of 2025

3. This Writ I)ctition is Iilcd by lhe auction-purc h rLser of 'A' schedule propert\/ sceking dcclaration ol'the action ol the respondent No. t Bank in not dclivcring thc physical possession ofthe properly realing Shop No.20 2 situatcd at ground t'loor of 'Bhasvalarmi Commc-rcial ('orlplcr' adrrcasLrrirtg 162.50 sq. li. siLuatcd at (iulzar l-louz. H1'dcrabad as pct the rcqistcrc(l Sa Ie Ccrtiflcatc bearinq Doc.No. 1250 ot' l0l.r tlatccl ll 06 2011. as illegat. arbitrarl, u'ith a consequential rlrrcctiotr ttr Respt'rnclcnt-llank to deliver phr'sical possessit-rlt o1'tlie said proptrtl to llte petltro ne f :1. 'l lrc lacLs erranated liom the record in W.P.No.l5i69 ol'l0l-i arc thar thc pctitioner No.l is a rnanufhcturel ol jeu'ellerl corltaitrirts qt)ld. silr cr-. p|ccious metals and sorni-precious stones, and dufing thc ctrLrrsc ot br-rsincss. ltre l" petitioncr availed original and renewed credit facilities tiorn thc l'' rc-spondcnt Bank tj-om time to time . The cash crcdit limit allorrccl b1 tltc 1" t'csponclent Bauk rias Rs.40 cloles. Strbsequentlr. it uas reducccl to I{s.35.3-i crores r ide Sanction Lettcr dated 06.12.20 l9 agaiust t.he relcasc ol'the lltofigagecl ltloperties u"orth [Ls.'1.6 I crorcs 5 On cl.'tault. thc Respondent-Bank issued demand troticc datccl t1.02.2020 uncler Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act (the Act), fbllorved b1 possessiorr notice dated 24.09.2020 under Section i3(4) ol- the saiil Act Eventually. an e-auction notice was issued dated 19.02.2021 and sale w'as con(luctcrl on i0.0i.102 t respect of Securitization Schedulc (SA) prol)crIics. ,\sslie vcd Lr1 saurc. thc Principlc []otrou ers lllcd S.A.No.87 l()ll & l'SA \o..1i202 I bclirrc I)R'l'. Hrr clabad. tiltich rvcrc disrnissccl orr ll Lti.l0ll lroldinu []ank's nrcusr.rres r r lirl. ['ctitioLrers thcrt lllctl l{er icrr I'etrtion No.-l l0ll riirich *as partlv i,ll()\\cd by' I)R1'on 08 0I 202-+. sctlll]! asidc thc c-illrction hclcl on 30.0',..102 I in respect of Sclrerlule .\ & K l)r'openics. citinq non-com;rliancc ri ith I{Lrle 3(5) ol'thc Secur-i11, Iutclcsl {l:nlbrccnrcnt) I{utes. 200] (Thc [tL lcs). 1'he Rank lllcd ,\ppeal No.l(l l(rl + bcli rc Dt{.\T. Kolkrta. rr h , b\ order datcd

05.02.2015. allLru cd the appcal auci dislnisscrl the Rcr rcrr' I)ctitton holding that DR-f hacl creecr.lcrl it: r'cr icri jurisriicLion 6 Aggr tev ctl rcrehr bolrouc-rs lilc-tl W.P.No. t-\ l(,9/2025 u,hile the auction purchascr Ill.-cl \\'.1'.No.l1l7l 2015 seeking d. livcrl,of possession bclirre this cor-r r-t

1. Hearcl Sli \r'inash [)csai. learnec] Scnior Counscl representing Sri P.V.SuL1'analuvuut. lcanrcrl counscl tbr the petitioncrs irr W.l).No.15369 ol 2025 and respr)n(lcnt Nos.2 to c) ir W.P.No.24372 tt| 2025. Sri Sharad Sanghi, leanrcrl er)unsel lirr thc pctitioner in W.P.N.I l-li71 ol 2025 and respondent No 2 in W.P.Nol5369 ol 2025, and Sri B Shiva I{am Sharma, learned counscl lor the respondcnt-Bank. .1

8. Sri Ar inash Desai. learncd Seniol Counse I contended that thc Wlit Petition ou,sht to be ailou cd on the ground that firstly, the impugned ordcr pas:cd by Lhc lcarnecl DI{.,\ I is in contravention ol'revielv jurisprudcnce in lndia ancl thr- spilir ol'Rulc 5 of the DR-l (Pr'ocedule) Rulcs, 199,1. sccondlv. contlarv to Rulc li(5 t ol the Rules. and thirdly", it coutt'avcncs binding precedents. [t is lirlthcr contencled that under Rute 5A( l) of the DR-l l{ulcs. the learnecl DR t is vcstcd ri,ith thc power to revier'v atr order matl.- by' thc Tribunal ()n accoun[ of sotne tuistakc o[ ertor appare nt orl tllc t'acc of thc rccorcl. u hcrcas thc lcarned DITAT at para-21 of the imptrgned ordcr crrecl in l-rolding tliat a nristakc apparent on the face ol'the rccord relates only to a tlpographical or arithrnctic error. In this regard. learnecl Scnitrr Counsel relicd upon thc dccision ol the Apex Courl in Grindla-t's BunL Ltl. J's. Cenrral Govt. Inlustriul Tribunul anel otherst whcrcin thc Hon'ble r\pcr Court reitcratcd that wliile tl're power to recall an orcler is inheleutly' r'csted r" ith all thc I ribunals, the porvcr to recall an order cannot bc assurlccl unlcss erpr-cssl1' r:r'anted b1' [arv.

9. Lcalned Scnior Counsel fbr the Petitioner contends that the DRI' at thc flrst instance t'ailed to note that the valuation report obtained b1' respondent No.1 u'as plepared much prior to the date of issuance of I 1930(Supp) SC(1 .120 5 possession llotice dated 21.09.2020, rvhich is itt clir,:ct contravcrttion of Rulc ti(5) ol'thc RLLIc:. Horrcr cr. thc lealnecl Prcsidinr Oftrcer ol'the DRT. at 1-r111'115 I9-2-l r)l the 011]cI irr tlt.' [ler ie\\ l)ctiti()rt t,rir\ Itr)tc 0l' the ert0r apparcnt on thc tacc ol' thc rccor-d ancl rcctifl,.:tl th-' prcr. ioLrs ordcr in S.-\ No.ti7 of 2()1 1 ri hilc rlotlng that the rcr ic* pctit,oners maclc out a r alicl grou nd t() sct asidc rhc e-auction hclcl on i0 0.r 102 I in rcspect of Schedule'.\'aud'K' plrpcrtics Ibt non-conrpliiurcc r,.ith Rr-rlc lt(5) olthe Rulcs. 'fhLrs. it is coutcnrlctl that riliie thc scopc o1'th,,' rc\ ieu jurisdiction u ith the lcarncd [)[{ I is limited. the rcsl.rondcr)r: itrc incorrect ir.r subnrittin-q that the lealncrl I)R'l' cxcccded its.lurisrlieti.rn. as thc exercise of powers in thc instant case is rvell u ithin the contoLrr., olthe statute

10. Thc learned Scr.rior ('otrusc-l iirrther conten(le(! that thc Valuation rcport ol'thc Bunk is clatcrl 2,1.0S.201(J, rr,hcrcas tl)c p\)':ession notice itself is <latcd 24.09 l0l0 ancl thc c-auction uas condrLctcd on i().03.2021 -[herelbrc, the timeliLre acloptcrl br the lcsporrdcnt \r. Bank is in direct conlravcntion of [{ule 8(5) ol'thc Act insofar- as it prcccdes the procedure prescribcd undcr ltules 8( I ) ancl li(2) ol- the llules ancl as such, dr.rc to such violation, the learned DR1' riglrttl' set aside thc e-aLrction in respect of Schedule-'A' and 'K' properties vide ordcr dated 0.1 01.2024 rn Review Pctition No.3 o12023 6 Il. Leamed Senior Couusel contended that the irnpugned order passed by the leamccl DRr\l' in Appcal No.20 o12024 sets a dangcrous precedent o1- ciLrtailinc thc p()\!cr's o1' tl)e ad.jLrclicarory 'l'ribunal, in dircct contrr\ entiou o1' jutlicill cli:ciplin.-. aud a Di" ision Bench ol'this Court in ,l'l/s. Pochiruj u Intlustias I r. Punjub )iatiottul Buuk and others: catcgoricall! held that a rescrl c pricc in tlie e-auction sale notice based on a r,aluation reporl pr"rblishctl prior- to such sale notice cannot be sustainecl and that undcr. Rulc S(-5 ) ol- thc I{ules. thc Authorised Of'llccr lnust obtairl a valuation reporl ti1) nr an appror.cd \lalucr irnn'rcdiately bctore the proposed salc. r.i hich \\ as not donc in tlrc prescnt case. He thus contcnds that non- compliance of the said binding precedcnt constitutes an crrot apparent on the face of thc recold. lt is thcrctbrc contcnded that the impugned order of the learncd DR,,\T is liablc to bc set aside

12. Learncd Senior ('ounsel tirrther tclied upon thc judernents of East India Comtnercial Co. Lttl., Cult'utlu l:s. Collector o.f Customs, Calcuttal as w'cll as Stutc o.f Rujustlrutt und anotlrer l/s. Surcndra Moltuot ttttd othersr, fululleeswari l1s. K.Sttgnunc-t to conten.l ttrat the learned DRAT passcd an ordcr ignorirrg the existing binding precedent constituting a t 20 t8 scc online tl1'd I 2 I t l96l scc onlilc SC l.1l '(:ot+) t-t scc ;; ' l0l5 scc onliLre S( l9ll manil-cst and palpable crror, u,hich, il'not rectiflccl rt, -'rctcisc o1- revier'v juri.scliction ()l jrrrisdiction ol lccall. u or-rld le'ad to !:rir\ c nriscarriage of -lLrstice ll. On the other hand. Sri [].Shi."'a Rarn Sarn,r. lcurncrl coutlsel appcar-inu on bclrallof the responclcrrt-llank contendcc L iat ()r(lcr l)assecl in S \ \o.S- ol'l()li ancl -[S.{ \o.-l ol']0ll datecl ll-( 5 l0ll Iias attaincd 1l na I itr sinec no statLlton'appcal IS lilecl by thc pctr r(lncl: irs nrandated lunder Sccliorr l8 ol'the Act and thc lcarnccl DRA'[ ha: ri!.lrtlv set aside the ordcr ol' thc rcvicrr' petition b1' categoricall_"- holdirr tlrat thcre is no uristake or en-or apparent on thc lhcc ol'the rccord ar,rl lhe r ieri taken b1, thc learned l)lt t is clloneous ll. I-calnccl counsel Iurthcr contcndcd that the lcrrr.nctl I)lLAT lurfhcr held that nonc o1'thc grr:unds take n hv the rcr ierr' pc iti,rner-s ar-c covered r.rndcr the hcacl r,1'the mistake or crror alll)arent ou tllc li.'c oi'thc lecord or an1' sutlcie nt rcarson or discor crr of nerr ancl rlllortant rnatter or er idence, aud tlicrcltrre, the contention o1- thc pctitiorrc,: be lirrc tl-re lcarnecl DR'l in S..\.No.S7 of 202 l and-ISi\ No.4 oll02 I a: r,cll as thc grounds in the Rcr icu l)etition No.i of 202] are sinrilar in n.rturc ancl the said feVle\\, applrcation ought not to havc bccn entertaincd rrt the tlrst instance E I5. Learnecl counscl for the Bank ftlr-thc| contended that r'r'hen the petitioners subnrittecl proposal tor one Timc SctLlcrrent (oTS) on thc basis of the r.aluation rcporr dated l-1.08.1020. the1, rejccted it and proceecled ri ith thc auction szrle ol'sclrudrrtc '.\' and 'K' properties and at thc time of considerinc th.- o ls proposll. no olr-icctions rrcrc rnarle regarding the valLration report. ancl hcnce. thc said tact itself speaks that the petitiofrers have accepted thc valuation rcpoLl n ithout prdcst and sincc, the O'f S proposal has becn ru'lectcd b1 the Bank. thc pctitionc|s llave nou'turned back to contend that thc valuatiou repotl is *,rong. rvhich by itse[l sliorvs tl-re nnla y'dc intention ol' the 1r.-titiortcLs tluly' rr' ith a r ic$' to deleat the \/ery purpose of thc Act. l(r. Learned counscl lir| tltc Bank tirrther cotltenclcd that schcdule-'A' propefty since tlrc tintc it rvas rnorl-eaged in 200], is only l0 sq' ,'-ards and thr.ou_shout thcse I 5 ycars, r aluation rcports clearl-u" indicate the propefty valuc r.vas nL-\ er abo\"c R5.10.00 [akhs autl that r'vlten a property is so ld,'auctioned, only lancl r,,aluc along \\ itl-t construction cost per squale t-eet is taken into account. but not the rental r,alue or its tcrnporary Structures and the valuation report of 2010 is correct, and that thc valuation report of the year 2016, it'hich the pctitioners seek to rely otl, is affived on wrong calculation methocl and inadYertently rent factor rvas taken into 9 corlsideration anrl lrcnce, lnistake in a r.'aluation rell()r ,llnnot be takeu as advuntage b_v th.- pctitioncrs sincc valuation rcl)ort ,)l thc Iear' 2020 is bascrl on i'actuirl secnlrrio cxistinq till tltcn and no ur, rqlirl ltrss t: cztttscd to tlrc pctiti()ncr\. l hcre lirlc, it is contcndcd that c,,n,itle iirrg tlte' abor c' tact.. the learncrl I)ll.\ I has rightlv ailoii'ecl Lhc aplrcir lr\ settins aside the olrlcr rr-r Rer ieu Pctition No.3 of 202-l and thelc is rr,.r irr irnritr irr rhe order passccl ancl the sanrc r{ocs not call lor any indulgcncc o lhe ('oult

11. On thc other lrunrl. Sri SI'rzrrad Sanchi. learneti L r rrn st- I apltcering on be hrrll' ol' auctirrn Purchascr vchement[y' contenderl tlr,rt ptrrsuanI to the c-auction salc rr ith rc-spcct to Schedule '.A' prol)cl-t\ irs rlescrilred in the \p|g3l o,., l0 0l l0ll, tlre 2"d respondent in W.l) \rr rit69 ol 2025 bccunre thc highcst bicklcr {br a total sr-rm of Rs.l9,ll t)tX).- and thcrcatier paiii the cntirs- amoirr.rt, w ithin thc stipulated periorl rr rlcI tlic r\ct and thc Rule:. to the rc:ponclcnt llank. The Bank crccutcd ln,l rcsistercd a salc cL'ftrticate on ()().{)-{.202 I in lavour ol the auctiorr tri.r'cliascr; hos,ever. phvsical possession ol- thc propcrty has not ),et bcLrr dcln crcd. In tlte nrcanrvhile, thc aLrctrorr purchaser came to knoir' llrt or,vnels of the propcrty filed S..\.No.87 o12021 bcfble the learnecl l)li l and obtained an intelin-r order. I hereafter', the auction pulchaser I ()fcl n got hirnself irnpleaded in S..\.\o.87 of 2021. rvhich rras lrrrcl disnrissed on 10

22.05.2023. 1-he principal bon'ou,ers frled a Revierv Application 1n R.A.No.3 of 2023 along u,ith an application lor stay of all turther proceedings. -fhc learned I)RT r.ide ortler dated I1.06.2021 gtanted slrrlrzs cltn Lrll titing ol thc counter and rhe sarrc was crlended tiorn tirne to tinre As such, the auction purchaser knocked the doors of ttris Coun by tiling W.P.No.i2067 ol 2021. u,herein this Court vicle orders daled 22.11,2023 dirccted the learned DRl' to dispose of the Revicw' Petition R.A.No.3 of 2021 r,vithin a period ol-6 ri,ccks. l8 Learncd counsel tbr the auctiou pttrchaser tirlher contended that the lcamed DRT passed an order datcd 08.01.202'{ in Revie"v Application No.l of 2023 io S.A.No.S7 of 202 I setting asidc the e-auction held on

10.01.2021 respect of SchcdLrle 'A' and 'K' properties. Bcing agr:rieved by ttre said orders, the auction purchaset' filed \\".P.No.6296 of 2024, *herein this Courl rvhile disposing the said Writ Pctition by order dated

13.03.2024 granted libcrty' to tile appeal undcr Section 18 of the Act Accordingly, an appeal r,"as filed betbrc the lcamed DILAT, which was Appeal No. 20 of 2074, and the said appeal was allor,ved on

05.07.2025 by setting aside the order datcd 08.01.2024 passed by the Ieamed DRT 19 l-carncd counsel ir.rrthe r contended that the ltlircLpal borros,er f-rled \\I.l'.No.i5l69 trl' 202-i aggrieved by' the orclels Pa:,sec1 lt1, t]re learned l)l{.\ [ rilrcLein initia] stav uas granted 18 0-t l

5. ri'hich $ as rlot ertcndcd subseqr-rcntlr. '['hercalicl thc auction pr.rrchascr- apploachcd Ihe t'cspo ndcnt-Ba n k rerlucsting to clcLivel physical possc:s.on of Lhc propen) pulchascd urrclcr c-auction. Hor,vcver, thc Banl. issued Ictter on

21.()7.1025 assuring delivery ol- possession to the a u clion-pr.rrchaser, buI thc surr-rc is not dclivcrcd. 'I hcrefore, ha'u'ing no altir-:iatir.c rcrncdy, the auclion purchaser'lllcd thc \! P.No.24i72 ol202,i

20. Learned counsel fbr the auction-purchaser furtht:r'contended that thc IC\, I C\\ pcLition filed b1, thc principal bomower is not nnrntainablc and it is onlv to circr-u.nr e nt Scctior-r l8 o1'the Act where thcrt- s nLt Appcal zrgainst thc flnal older-, AppcaI a_sainsL thc Revier.r, is not nx,intainablc- In this Legard, he placeil reliance on the citation in Blsra Overseus untl Properties Pri'utr: Linited und unother Vs. Dnion o/ [ndia6 u,lrereiu rrr purtt-30. thc Flon'ble Apcx Coult held that the decisions pcfiainirs to maintainabrlity of special leave petition or for that rnatrcr appcal have to bc seenrll' trnclerstoocl. Tliolrgh thc decision in Shanker ,llotiram \tule Vs. " (ro r6) l scc 696 t2 Shioktlsing Gunnusing Rajput' the tu'o-Judgc Bcnch refcn'ed to Order 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civit Procedure that bars an appeal against the order ol the court lejecting the revieu. it is not to be understood that the Courl has curlailecl the plenarl' jurisdiction r.rnclcr Article 136 ol'the Constitutiot.t by taking recourse to the provisions o1'tlie Code ol Civil Proceclure . [t has to bc understood that the Court has evolved and tbrrnulated a principle that if ttie basic jr-rdgrnent is not assailed and the challenge is onll' to the order passcd iu rcvic\\', this Courl is obligcd not to enleftaiu such spccial leave pctition. I he said principle has gaincd the authoritative status ancl has been treatcd as a plecedential plinciple fbr tnorc Lhan tlro decaclcs 21 . Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel ftrdher contended that under the Act. thc proceedings ale summary in natttre, thc rcl'ictv is governcd by Section 22(2)(e) of the RDB Act 93 and Rulc 5-A of the DRT Rules. and theretbre contended that the Review' Courl has eroneouslY interfered u'ith the initial order passe d on 22.05.2023. [n this regard, learned counsel relied upon thcludgment in Sunjay Kunrur Agarwul Vs. Stute Tax OJficer (l) arut another 3, wherein the Apex Court held thal- an enor r'vhich is not self'-cvident and has to be detected by a process ofreasoning, can l'rardly be ' ( t9gl) I scc 75i : (2olJ)l SCC l(,1 J saicl to be an en'or apparent on the tace of record justif_ving thc court to cxcr-cise its pouver o1- rcvieu,. In exercise of jurisdic.ion uncler Order .17 Rulc I CPC'. it is not pcLmissrblc lor-an crroneous de,:i,,ion ttr be 'rehearcl and cor-r'ectcil'. ,\ rer icri petiLion has a limitecl pul pose and cannot bc alloricd to Lrc 'an lppcal ir-r disgLrisc' )) i earnerl counsel lbl thc auctio n-pu rchascr fr-rrthel reliecl upon a decrsicrn in 5.l'iruputhi Rao l:s. trI.Lirtgumaiulr and orharse u hcLcin the Apcr Cior:rt hclii that au crror apl)al'enl on the face of rhe rccord has to lrc sell'-cr idcnt. \\ l-rerc. conceir.ablv. ti,r,o opinions can bc torLned in a givcn set of flcts and circumstances and onc opinion of the t.r,rr has been fbnled, there is r1o error airparent on the lhcc ol'the record. Ilor,r,cve r, disabusing or-rr mind o1- srLc[r au intpressittn, u.e have looked into :ach of thc qrouncls Not a singlc qr,:rutrcl seu,cd consideratior-r to embarl: in al ercrcise to re\ Ie\\ thc -judgLncnt and oldcr datect 16.08.2018 even or.r thc basis ol ciiscovcly of Lreu and important matter or cvidence. Thci-ctbr-e, the }lon'ble Suprcrne Cor-rrt dcclinccl to interlbrc s iLh the findings it the Rcr icrl

23. Learned counscl lbr the auctiou-purcha ser fufther contendcd on thc ground of r"atuation that the valuation is a tact which c,annot be assailcd in e l0l1 SCC Online Sa' L;fi4

1.1 a Writ Petition undcr Artrclc 22(r of the Constitution o[- India since therc is no rival valuation by thc bon-or'," ers and i l ortl.t' ugilttlittt tlnt thc tuluc tttliarr. tlticlt is ttctt ',ortlt' of'baittg ttct'eptatl. In this rcgarcl. hc leliccl upon -judgmcn t ol- thc .\per ('otn-t in Chilumkurti IJulu Subruluuatr-t'am L's. Stmuntlrupurli l'iju1'u Lukshtni und unothcrt'). .-lnil Kumur Sritutstuvu l's. Stute ol' L:ttur Pradashtt ancl Kayjat' lndusn'ics ( P) Ltd l's- .1sueln Drums (P) Lttl.tl

24. Learnecl C'ounsel firr the a uction-pu rcha ser lurtltcr contendeLl that the stage ol objcction is at Rule 9( I ) or Rulc 8(6) atrd not alicr auctiorl cornplctcd. In this rcgartl, he relicd upon thc j uclgrncnt in l[.Jantrdlrutt l,'s. 7 ha Debt Recovcrt'Tribunttl, Chennui antl otherstt. 25 Learnecl counsel lurthcr contended that unless thcre is anv tiaud allesed or substantiatcd. the sale cannot be sct asiclc. [t is lirrtlrer contendcd that thc corrnl()n ordcrs passed in -i Rcr icu, Applications. tiling of Appeal against one causc olaction is hit by' tlic principlc ol rcs.f utlicara. "'(:or-) r, scc' rro " (lool t s scc 6: I 't ,r.lR 197+ sc Ii. ,' ;t{ rNI'TN jos(r lr)l I ) In tlus rcgalcl, h.- rclicd upon the decisicln in Sri Gurtgai l'irruyugor Ten tpl e L's. l'lce n a lislt i .4 tn n ul | 1 .

26. lt is tlnallr contcntlccl that thc r,rdcr passcd trr thc lcarLred D[{-f S...\.\o.ii7 trl' l()l l tLrtcd 2l 05 201.1 has attainetl lir alitv and Lhat thc lcarnccl DI{ [ ouslrt not to har c rL-\ ic\\.ed its coirr,)or] order bv tlre lpLrunecl ortlcr ri:rtcrl 0S.() l.l0l.1 in R A No.l 201 anrl soLrght fbr a clilection to cl,--lir cr' phr''sical posse ssion ol the pl()pcrl ; he irr.-si Shop No 20 situirtcd at srorrncl lltrol ol' 'Bhau-valaxnri (-Lrnrrucrcial Corrplex' adr.ncasurinq I(r2.-i0 st1. Ii. situated ar Ciulzar Houz. I Ivdcrabad lD lhvo r.r r ol the auction pur-chase r 21 . We har c gir cn ()uI cnnrcst consicieratiorr to t]rc r arious corltcntions vehementl.l' ra iscd br' thc partics. and perused thc rccoril

28. l his ('ourL tlnrls that the principal bon'orvcrs tlo not drspute thc availmcnt of loan lacilitics or crcatiorl of mtrrrgagcs. Ihcir lepresentation to thc demand notie c rr as rlul1, consiclcrcd. and though tlrey approached Lhc Banking Ombuclsnran. thc conrplair-rt rr as closed anrl ro lirlther- challcnge pursued. l hc plca rcgarding t'ixation ol resen-c I'r-icc on an outdatecl valr.ration rcpor-t ol'20 1(r is also untenable, as thc t)RI ,tscll'recorded that a '' (lo ts) ; sc c o:l l6 tiesl'r valuation dated 24.08.2020 n,as relied upon, proximate to the auction notlce- 2L). [tcgarding thc petitioner's corltention on collusion bet*'eetr the bank ancl aucliorr purchascr-, the DR'l' hetd that under the atrended Rule 9(4) (ef tectir c tiom 0.1. I l.l0 l 6). the extension of time tbr payment ol-the 75'% balancc pulchase price is solely bctweeu the secured creditor and thc auction purchaser, and thc boLror.rer has no role in this. Since tlte extensiou was -elranted rvithin thc pennissible 90-day period (titl 30.06.2021, as per the letter dated 05.04.2011), ancl there was no viotation ol-Rule 9(3) or 9(4), no rights of the pLincipal borrowers were infiinged, uor r,r,as any pre.ludice caused. 'l'heretbre, thc DRT fbund no merit in the petitioner's contentiorls and helcl that they thited to establish grounds to set aside the Bank's actions under the Act

30. The only issue pressecl in rer,'iew was that the valr"ration preceded the posscssion noticc and thcrcby violated Rule 8(5) o1-the Rulcs. The I)l{T, rvl-rile enterlair-ring the revier'v, procccded to reassess the valuation and set asidc the auction. The DRA I correctly held that such an ercrcisc amounted to re-appreciation of evidence and exceeded the narrow limits of ,"ris1i, jurisdiction. Qucstions relating to adequacy of valuation and t1 cornpliance with Rule 8(5) arc rnatters for appeal under Section l8 SARFAESI. noI rer,'ierv

31. This CoLrrL concurs ri ith the reasonins of thc Dllr\.l . uhich reliedon binding precedents includins Suniay Kumor Agarw,ul t'. State Tu-t O.fficer and anotherti, r,i.herein the Hon'ble Supreme CotLn hc-lcl as under: "Thcn gist o./ tlu,LlirL stdtt'(l is tlrul (i) A jttclqrncru is oltcrt to tttit(tt intL,r ulitt i/ tltere t: crn)r.Ipl)Ltr.attl ott tlu' lttr:t ol tltc rL'tortl Du\tdli( 0r (ur (ii1 tl lutlgrncrtt pt t)notutL!(l by' thc (ourt rs .fitul. tutit ,ltpitrrtu'e fronr that priru:iplc is.jtrslilid ottlt y.hcn (i.rau slun((s ol tL ;lbsr ltial onLl c:ontpt:IIittg ,:Ituracti't ttIdkL, L! tt& c.\s tt Io dct sO. (iii) At't crror trltic h i.s not sclf -ct ltlL'ttt arul lru.s ro l),.. (let(.iad h), process ol rt,usottirt,g, tun lturdl),bc stti.d Lo bc ut t,rroi ul)ptrenI ott tlrc IOL'. of t,t,tnl .ttr,til\ it1': lltt , ttttfl lo,.\,'/i /\. //, 1rtt', t. .1 r,,t i, tt (iv) In ete rcrse ol tht .f uristlrcriort tutdt r Ortlcr !7 tlttl, I Ct,C, il i.\ not permissihlc f br lt ct n,n(otr.\ dt:cisian to bc t e lLtrtrd at.i tttt t't'cted'. (v) A Rcvctr l'cribtt lut.s u linitctl ltu ltosc tutti tcrnrtoi be ul.lot,ed to be 'an appeol rn lisltri.st' (vi) Undct lhe gui.st' o.f rctiar, tlta pttiti.oncr conuot itt ltctmtttul tr,t re- agit.rte ana! r'aur.gua the qu6tk)tts ttititlt hatc alrcud. itct:n utldrcs.sed ancl decitlcd (vii1 An crror ort th,: .lica ol rt:cortl nust ba \rr.h un ::t't or '.rhich, ara looking at tlrc rctor d .slrcultl strikr:, turtl it shr.tt tl tot r'.:uuitc any leno, dratt n proccss ol rcctsotting ot.t tllc poinlJ v lrcre lheri' mtrv r:ont,eiyahlv be huo oltinions '' 12oz+y z scc 362 t8 (tiii) t.t'en thc clnrLge in lttv, or strbsequ('t decisiot1,.'iudgment or (t co' ot linrttr or lctrger Bench hf ils('lf (unnol Lre rcgardctl as a grorutd lir ft'r'lctr'. -12. This Cour-L obscll cs that DI{1', while entertaining Rer icw' Pctition No.3,102i, \\'!'nt into qucstions alrcady dccided in SA No.87'2021 and 'l'SA No.4,'202 i. Thc so-callcd r iolation ol- Rule 8(5), even i1' arguablc, involves appreciation of er idcttcc and intelpretation of law, rv[rich falls outside thc narrorv compass of "error apparent on the face of the record." As helcl in Sttnjor Kttn'tor (su1tt"cri. revierv caunot be an appeal in disguise

33. .fhe BorLou ers re licd lrear ily on Pochiruju Industrics(Suprrri. No doubt, thc precedct-tt ctnphasizcs the nced fbl valuation immediatel)' belbre sale. Howcver. the applicabitity ol such preccdent goes to merits ol the case. and czrn bc canvasse-cl itl an lppeal Lll-Ider Section l8 SARFAIISI. tt cannot be tleate(l as an "ctt'ot apparent" tbr purposes of revierv. DRT exceeded its rcvi*r' j urisdiction by rc-apprcciating valuation ev ideuce

34. Ilorvever, thc principal bonow'ers ought to have knocked the doors of appettate authority under Scction 18 ol the Act within a period of 30 days. \Vithout availing the appropriate cf tlcacious remedy, humedll' tiled ."rrig1r, petition and ultimatcly buried the justice. Since, so much water has l9 flou,n, the aucLion purchasers at-c at liberty.to take possession of thc sr-rbjcct propefty.

35. Once the salc ccrtitlcate is issr-red and reqisrerccl. thc auction purchascr acqutles vcstccl risht. ancl tLnle-ss fl'aud or illt..'ualirf is prorcd, the salc cannot be clistulbed. Sincc DRA f iias allcadr. rcsrrtlcrl thc Dlt'l''s ori.'ginaI ordel ancl set asidc the rcvieu. tltc auction puL -:[rascr is entitlcd fbr the possession

36. In vicw of the abo',.e discussion. \\ .l).No.lji6() o12025 tilcd bv thc principal bonowers is disrnisscd. \\.P.No.2,1-172 ot' 2015 tllccl bv the auct ion-purchaser is allo',vcd. Sincc. thc interinr olcicr sranted on

28.05.2025 has not been cxtended subsequenrly. I..\.No.2 of 2025 in W P No.15369 of2025 shall stand ciosed

37. As a sequel, ntiscellancoLrs 1:rctitions pending il anv shall stand closed. There sh4ll bc no.ordcr as to costs. .. //TRUE C)OPY// \.\ j SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN TANT REGISTRAR \_- SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MOUSHU-IVI (For His LordshiP's Kind Perusal) AI!D One fair copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PI1AVEEN KUMAR (For His LordshiP's Kind Perusal) IBHATTACHARYA To

1. 2. 3 4 5 7 11 L.R. Copies. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, tr'4inistry of Law, Jus"ice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, Higll Court Buildings, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI SHARAD SANGHI, A.dvocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI B.SHIVA RA[l SHARIVA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI P.V.SURYANARAYANA, Advocate (OP J l) Two CD Copies SA MMT HIGH COURT DATED:2610912025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.15369 AND 24372 of 2025 ,::'- -1-'-_- - - - - -- i ltil;. -i ..f i]\. 2 ,/4t i00[Im ,j. )t \,. i' iit' DTSMISSING THE W.P.1 5369/25 AND ALLOWING THE W.P.24372125 WITHOUT COSTS. .i J, q