High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ of mandamus declaring the notice d1.31.08.2021 in R.C. / R.P.No. 45312017 in O.A.No. 549t2016 issued by Debt Recovery Officer of Respondent No.'l tribunal herein as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of ll Schedule to the lncome Tax Act 1961 and issue a consequential order setting aside the same a f-7i=zl.- ,/ A NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pursuant to the notice d1.31.08.2021 ir R.C./R.P.No. 45312017 in O.A.NI:. 54912016 issued by Debt Recovery Officer ,:f Respondent No.1 tribunal pending disposal of WP.No. /2021 IA NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstitnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to list WP No 2129712021 under the caption FOR BEING IVENTIONED lA NOr 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumsti,rnces stated in the affidavit filed in :support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal - I (Respondent No.1 herein) to adjudicate the claim petition filed by the petitioner herein vide Claim Petition l',1o.150/202'1 in R.C.No.453/2017 in 0.A.No.549 of 2016 before proceeding further ir the matter of sale of properties set out thereln by taking note of the facts set cut in aforesaid affidavit lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between: Union Bank of lndia, (erstwhile Corporation Bank) New Nallakurta Branch, Rep. by its Chief [\,4anager H.No.2-2-1118l1/6, Shivam Road, Hyderabad-SOO o44 ...VACATE PETITIONERYRESPI)NDENT NO.2 AND 1 Chimmula Sugunakaar Reddy, S/o. Chimmula Ram Reddy, ,,\ged about 50 years, Occ- Agriculturist, Fyo. 2-31 , Karkapatla, Medak District-r102281 ..RESPONDENT NO.1/PETITIONER IN W.P 2 J 4 Debts Recovery Tribunal - l, Hyderabad, rep.by its Registrar, a\ 11-12-214 King Koti Road Behind. Tajmahal Hotel, Abids, Hyderabad-S0C001 Batthula Gopal Yadav, S/o. Babu Yadav, Aged Major, F/o.H.Nr:.4-4-135, Bharath Nagar, Near. Yellamma Temple, Kowkoor, HYDERABI\D -500010. Batthula fr/ahesh Yadav, S/o. Babu Yadav, Aged Major, R/o.H.lrlo.4-4-'135, Bharath Nagar, Near.Yellamma Temple, Kowkoor, HYDERABAD -500010 ...RF:SPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in srlpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders daled 0710912021 passed in l.A No.1 crt 2021 in WP No.21297 of 2021 and dismiss the Writ Petition with exemplary costs, {, .-'-- ) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. J PRABHAKAR REP-, FOR SRI AZIZ HUSSAIN Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. V. DYUMANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,3&4: -- WRIT PETITION NO: 21294 OF 2021 Between: .Chimmula Sugunakaar Reddy, S/o. Chimmula nqm !9!{V' Ag^ed gbout 50 years, Occ Agiiculturist, No. 2-Zl , Karkapatla, Medak District-502281 ...PETTTTONER(S) AND

1. Debts Recovery Tribunal-|, Hyderabad rep.by its Reg.is-t1qr., a! 11-12-214 King Koti Road, Behlnd.Tajmahal Hotel, Abids, Hyderabad-500001

2. Union Bank of lndia, (erstwhile Corporation Bank) New Nallakunta Branqhr- - Rep. by its Chief Manager H.No.2-2-1 1181116, Shivam Road, Hyderabad-SO0 044

3. Batthula Rakesh Yadav, S/o. Babu Yadav, Aged lVlajor, Fyo.H'No'4-4-135, Bharath Nagar, Near.Yellamma Temple, Kowkoor, HYDERABAD -5000'10' 4. Batthula Mahesh Yadav, S/o. Babu Yadav, Aged [Vlaior, Rl/o.H.No'4-4-135' Bharath Nagar, Near.Yellamma Temple' Kowkoor, HYDERABAD -500010 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ of mandamus declaring the notice dt.31to8l2o21 in R.c./ R.P.No.483/2017 in o.A.No.547/2016 issued by Debt Recovery Officer of Respondent No.1 tribunal herein as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of ll schedule to the l4come Tax Act '1961 and issue a consequential order setting aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pursuant to the notice d1'311O812021 in R.C./R.P.No.48StZOll in o.A.No.547l2016 issued by Debt Recovery officer of Respondent No.'1 tribunal lA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 list WP No 2129412021 under the caption FOR BEING MENTIONED 4 tA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition undr:r.Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Hon'bie Debt Rec;overy Tribunal - I (Respondent No.1 herein) to adjudicate the claim petition filed by the petitioner herein vide Claim Petition No.'15112021 in R.C.No,483/2017 in O.A.No.547 of 2016 before proceeding further in the matter of sale of properties set out therein by taking note of the facts set out in aforesaid affidavit lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between: Union Bank of lndia, (erstwhile Corporation Bank) New Nallakunta Branch, Rep. by its Chief ltrlanager H.No.2-2-'1 1'18l1/6, Shivam Road, l.lyderabad-S0O 044 ...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT NO.2 IN W.P AND 1 2 J 4 Chimmula Sr.rgunakaar Reddy, S/o. Chimmula Ram Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ- ligriculturist, R/o. 2-31, Karkapatla, Medak District 502281 ...RESPONDENT NO.1/PETITIONER IN W.P Debts Recovery Tribunal - l, Hyderabad, rep.by its Registrar, at 11-12-214 King Koti Road, Behind. Tajmahal Hotel, Abids, Hyderabad-50{)001 Batthula Gopa Yadav, S/o. Babu Yadav, Aged Major, Rl/o.H Nr>.4-4-135, Bharath Nagar, Near. Yellamma Temple, Kowkoor, HYDERAB,AD -5000 10. Batthula [\,4ahesn Yadav, S/o. Babu Yadav, Aged t\/ajor, Rl/o. H. No.4-4-135, Bharath Nagar, Near.Yellamma Temple, Kowkoor, HYDERABAD -500010 Petition underr fiection 15'l 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 0710912021 passed in lA No.1 of 2021 in WP No.21294 of 2021 and dismiss the Writ Petition with exemplary costs ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. J PRABHAKAR REP., FOR SRI AZIZ HUSSAIN Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Ms. V. DYUMANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,3&4: -- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BIIATTACIIARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO UIRIT PETITIoN Nos.21297 and,2l 294 0F 202r Mr. J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Ms. V.Dyumani, leamed counsel for the respondent No-2. ORDER: (Per Hon,L,le Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) The petitioner prays for withdrawal of the two writ petitions before this Court narnely W.p.Nos.21297 and 21294 of 2O2I.

2. The objection raised by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Union Bank of India is primarily on the ground that the petitioner enjoyed a,., interim order passed by a co-ordinate Bench on 07 .O9.2O21 whereby the auction for the property purchased by the petitioner was stayed on the condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.25,0O,OOO/_ to the respondent No.2_ Bank. However, the petitioner failed to make the balance payment within the time undertaken. 3' counsel places the order dated or.og.2o2r to submit that a specific submission has been made on beharf of the petitioner before the Court on O7.O9.2O21 that the petitioner is ready to pay the total amount outstalding to the Ba:nk within a reasonable period of time. 2 Counsel also refers to the averment in the writ petitions u'herein the petitioner has stated that the balance payment would be paid within four months. tlounsel accordingly prays for appropriate costs to be imposed on the petitioner on the ground of abuse of process.

4. Learned lir:nior Counsel appearing for the petitioner takes the Court through t.he relevant facts beginning with frling cf the writ petitions. Counsel submits that the petitions were filecl by reason of the Bank attempting to auction the petitioner's propertv while the petitioner's clarm u,as pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Counsel submits that the intervening delay ir-r rnaking the balance paymenl- is due to a mistake in understanding on the part of the petitioner on the total amount due. While the pettioner was under the presumption that the petitioner would have to pay Rs. 1 crore to lhe Bark, the petitioner subsequentll failed to understand that :he petitioner would have to pay a total amount of Rs.2 crores. Cotrnsel further submits that the delay was also caused by reason of the r:ondition imposed by the Balk that the settlement between the petitioner and the Bank would have to be n:ade in the presence of thr: borrower as well as the petitioner's vendor. We t understand that the petitioner's vendor purchased the property from the borrower.

5. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a farmer/agriculturist and the petitioner was hence unable to take prompt steps for returning the balalce amount to the Bank. It is also significant to state that the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petitions for approaching the DRT for pursuing the claim petition pending before the DRT

6. We have heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties. On consideration of the material placed for our perusal, we are of the view that the Court cannot put any form of fetters on a petitioner who seeks to withdraw writ petitions lrled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only consideration is whether the petitioner shoyld be visited with costs for seeking to withdraw the writ petitions after a gap of four years and failing to pay the balance outstanding amount during that period. 7 . Considering the factual submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, we are not inclined to impose any costs for withdrawal of i --' - .i 4 the writ petitions. We have been informecl that the respondent Irlo.2 - Bank is continuing to benefit from the interest paid by the pr:1ili6p61- on the balance amounts as on date.

8. We are also of the view that there is no abuse <.,f process as noticed by the lJon'ble Supreme Court in Dnyand.eo Sobaji Naik us. Pradnga Prak-.a s:h Khadekarl . That case was a dispule between a landlord and ;l tenant and the Supreme Court found abuse of process sinr:e rhe tenant took several extensions for vacating the premises but later sought review of the order passed in the First Appeal along rvtth another application for vacating the premises.

9. We must a so refer to the said decision in the context of the reliance placed on p.R.Deshpande us. Mantti Balaram Haibotti2 wherein it u'as l-reld that an undertaking given by the pa:ty in Court for stay of operation of the judgment cannot be used to foreclose that party's right to a statutory remedy of Appeal, rev ision or a constitutional rernedy against the order.

10. The reasons given in the above paragraphs are sr.rfficient for permitting the pr:titioner to withdraw the two writ petition,s. I lzorr; s scc aor 'z1rtet; o scc soz 5

11. W.P.Nos.21297 and 21294 of 2021 are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated and all connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASS STANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI AZIZ HUSSAIN Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. J PRABHAKAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Ms. V. DYUMANI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies KKS GJP HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 .f :---. -i s s.-a 16l 21 APR 20fr It 'lu- Vzt\..* -..--... COMMON ORDER WP.No.21297 and 21294 of 2021 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WTHOUT COSTS t-