High Court · 2025

1 Sri. Bandla Ganesh Babu, S/o Sri. Bandla Nageshwar Rao, Aged 50 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No. 18-190/1 , Opp. Saibaba Temple, Main Road, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. Sri. Bandla Shiva Babu, S/o Sri. Bandla Nageshwar Rao, Aged 52 years. Occ. Business. Rl/o H No. 1 B-190/1 , Opp Saibaba Temple, Main Road, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. Sri. Bandla Nageshwara Rao, S/o Sri. Bandla Raghavaiah, Aged 72 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 1B-'190/.1 , Opp. Saibaba Temple, Main Road, Shadnagar. Mahaboobnagar District. 3

4. Smt. Bandla Seetharavamma, W/o Sri. Bandla Nageshwar Rao. Aged 68 years, Occ. Business, Ri/o H.No. 18-190/'1, Opp. Saibaba Temple, Main Road, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. ,.RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS Petition under Order 47 rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated !n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Review/lr,4od ify the Order dated 13.10.2025 passed in W.P.No. 30655 of 2025. Counsel for the Review Petitioner: SRI B.MAYUR REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL, FOR SRI KOUSHIK KANDURI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.AROAH The Court made the following: ORDER This Application is filed seeking Review of an order dated 13.10.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.30655 of 2025, filed by the writ petitioners (Borrowers). The Review Applicant (Auction Purchaser) before this Court was the respondent in the Writ Petition. The sub;ect matter of the Review is the order dated 13.10.2025 whereby this Court disposec of the Writ Petition challenging an order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata ('DRAT') The said order was passed in an LA. (1.A.No.615 of 2025\ in Appeal No.101 of 2025 filed by the respondent. Tne l.A. was filed by the writ petitioners for a direction on the respondent nol to alienate, physically alter, modify, demolish or create any third party interest in respect of the Schedule Property forming the subject matter of the Appeal as well as to grant permission to the writ petitioners or their authorized agents to assess the changes caused to the Appeal Schedule Property. The Court proceeded to dispose of the U/rit Petition by holding that there was no scope for interference in the order dated 25 09.2025 passed by the DRAT, since the Appeal instituted by the respondent is still pending before the DRAT. The Court, however, noted that the respondent cannot be permitted to demolish/alter the property pending hearing of the said Appeal. The writ petitioners were granted liberty to move an appropriate application before the DRAT for necessary reliefs which was to be considered by the DRAT with due regard to any imminent risk in respect of the property. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review ApplicanUrespondent submits that the order dated 13.10.2025 is required to be reviewed since the Court injuncted the respondent from demolishing the property pending hearing of the Appeal before the DRAT. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the only prayer sought for by the writ petitioners in W.P.No.30655 of 2025 was for truncating the time of 66 days for filing of the reply by the respondent granted by the DRAT vide order dated 25.09.2025 The Writ Petitioners (Borrowers) are represented. We do not firrd any scope for Review of the order dated 13.'10.2025. We find that contrary to the submission made, the prayer in the Writ Petition was to declare the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the DRAT as illegal, arbitrary, biased, unjust, without application of mind and in violation of Articles 14, 300-4 of the Constitution of I lndia and to set aside the same by directing the respondent not to alienate, physically alter, modify, demolish or create any third-party interest in respect of the Appeal Schedule Property pending disposal of the Appeal. We also do not find any prejudice which the respondent could have faced by reason of the order dated 13.10.2025. All that the Court directed therein was for the respondent not to take any steps to demolish/alter the property so as to not render the writ petitroners' 1.A., infructuous, pending hearing of the same before the DRAT. This restraint was imposed only in view of the fact that the DRAT refused to pass any order of status quo in favour of the writ petitioners in 1.A.No.615 o'f 2025 on

25.09.2025 since the respondent had not yet been given an opportunity of hearing as on that date. The DRAT thought it fit to make the l.A. returnable for orders with respect to the issue of grant of interim protection afler hearing the leamed counsel for the parties on 01.12.2025. The concern shown by the Court was by reason of the apprehension expressed on behalf of the writ petitioners that the respondent was taking steps to render the writ petitioners' l.A. infructuous before 01 .12.2025. The order under Review also does not contain any specific direction to the DRAT to pass orders in the l.A. in favour of the writ petitioners. Needless to say, the order indicates that the DRAT is expected to consider any other I.A. filed by the writ petitioners on merits and in accordance with law. We hence find the anxiety of the Review ApplicanUrespondent to be unfounded. Not only is the respondent's Appeal pending before the DRAT, but also the DRAT has scheduled the hearing of the l.A. filed by the writ petitioners. Hence, the respondent would be better served in seeking appropriate reliefs before the DRAT including for changing the nalure and character of the subject property or for contesting the I.A. filed by the writ petitioners in that regard. Even otheruvise, the Review Application does not satisfy the general principles warranting Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. We may refer to the recent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (AlR 2024 SC 2694) in this regard. We make it clear that none of the parties before this Court shall take advantage of the order dated 13.1O.2025, in the pending Appeal and the l.A. before the DRAT. l.A.No.4 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above. ,TRUE COPY// S DE HD ISMAIL REGISTRAR S ON OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 BSR PIVK The Presidrng Officer, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, lkatta One CC to SRI K.AROAH, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI KOUSHIK KANDURI, Advocate [OPUCI Two CD Copies (fl HIGH COURT DATED: 3A11012025 ORDER l.A.No.4 of 2025 IN WP.No.30655 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE I.A., (A- ( 'r\ R I H E Si,:A- 14' o( J 0 { tr8v p5 (' ) ) t\ 1