Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/7545/2026 of THOTA LAKSHMI @ LAKSHMAMMA Vs CANARA BANK on 29 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7545 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-11 [3575] Thota Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma ...Petitioner Vs. Canara Bank and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Present: Advocate
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
APHC010140292026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 7545 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-11
Thota Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma ...Petitioner Vs. Canara Bank and Others ...Respondent(s)
********** CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Present: Advocate for Petitioner: Smt. M. Vinodhini Ruth, Counsel representing Sri Jaya Prakash Madasu, learned counsel for Petitioner.
LISA GILL, J [
Learned counsel for petitioner, at the outset, submits that it is due to a typographical error that date of impugned order has been mentioned as 05.01.2026, whereas it is 12.01.2026.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed by petitioner, aggrieved of order dated 05.01.2026 in I.A. No. 4641 of 2025 in AOR No. 2 of 2020, passed by learned Debts Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam [for short, ‘Tribunal”], in not extending time, which was granted to the petitioner vide Order dated 05.01.2026 for depositing 50% of the amount in question till 12.01.2026.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there are justifiable reasons for not being able to deposit the amount within the time granted vide Order dated 05.01.2026. It is further submitted that failure of learned Tribunal to grant extension of time is unjustified.
4. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the file with her able assistance.
5. It is a matter of record that challenge in the present Writ Petition is directed against interlocutory order dated 12.01.2026 passed by learned Tribunal, which is admittedly an appealable order. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any exceptional or compelling circumstances warranting interference by this Court.
6. In view of the efficacious alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
(LISA GILL) JUDGE
(NINALA JAYASURYA) JUDGE
Date: 30.03.2026 MS
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 7545 OF 2026 Date: 30.03.2026
MS