Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/1186/2026 of RACHANURI VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs HOME FIRST FINANCE COMPANY INDIA LTD on 18 January 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE WRIT PETITION NO: 1186/2026 Between: 1. RACHANURI VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O. DURGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, DOOR NO. 29 BAI PETA,
APHC010019512026
IN TH
MONDAY,
TWO
THE HONOURABLE SR
THE HONOURAB
W
Between:
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.
1. RACHANURI VIJAY YEARS, DOOR NO BAI PETA, VIJAYA 520010
1. HOME FIRST FIN AUTHORIZED OFF ANDHERI KURLA R
2. PADALA SAMBASIV YEARS, RESIDING SEETANNAPETA, ANDHRA PRADESH
3. SMT PADALA NIR RAO, AGED 48 APPANNA STR VIJAYAWADA, NTR Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue a Writ, o E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUAR O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 1186/2026 YALAKSHMI, W/O. DURGA RAO, AG O. 29-14-46, PUSHPA HOTEL CENT AWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA AND NANCE COMPANY INDIA LTD, R FICER, REGISTERED OFFICE 511, ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI - 4 VA RAO BORROWER, S/O. GURUV G AT D.NO. 25-9-11, JAMI APPAN GANDHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, N H - 520003 3. RMALA DEVI CO BORROWER, W/O YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 2 REET, SEETANNAPETA, GA R DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 5 ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High order or Orders more particularly one DESH
RY DRANATH ROY GEDELA GED ABOUT 54 RE, KASTURI A PRADESH - ...PETITIONER REP. BY ITS ACME PLAZA, 00059 2. ULU, AGED 48 NNA STREET, TR DISTRICT, O. SAMBASIVA 25-9-11, JAMI ANDHINAGAR, 520003 SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 through Advocate Commissioner by name Vandrasi Koushik, trying to dispossess the petitioner from the house property bearing D.No.40-17-283B, Plot No.8, Patamata, Vijayawada by affixing a notice dt.30.12.2025 to take the physical possession of the schedule property, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondent no.1 to withdraw the proceedings under SARFAESI Act against the property situated at R.S. No. 28/2, Door No. 40-17-283 B, Plot No. 8, Assess No. 1073190999, Patamata, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Area, N.T.R. Districtin in an Extent of 63/2 Sq. Yds and G 2 building therein by receiving outstanding dues from the petitioner within a reasonable time as may fixed by this Hon’ble Court which shall be recoverable from the 2d respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ANASURI ESWAR SAI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Owing to the fact that respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the borrower and co-borrower committed default in repayment of loan amount availed by them from the 1st respondent-Finance Company, the 1st respondent has initiated measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’). Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was given to take possession of the said property by appointing an advocate commissioner to that effect. Challenging the same, the petitioner, who is a third party, filed securitization application No.9 of 2026 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. According to the petitioner, she is the owner of the secured asset and respondent Nos.2 and 3 by playing fraud have subjected the said property to mortgage to the Finance Company for the loan availed by them.
3. Even though the petitioner is a third party to the loan transaction, she can as well challenge the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent-Finance Company under the Act by way of filing securitization application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, as she clearly comes within the expression “any person” used in Section 17 of the Act. In fact, she has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of filing securitization application. The same is pending adjudication before the said Tribunal. It is stated that the said application is posted to 06.02.2026. Therefore, she has to pursue her remedy before the Tribunal, where she has already approached seeking redressal of her grievance. She cannot maintain parallel proceedings before the Tribunal and before this Court.
4. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain the writ petition.
5. So, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pursue her remedy before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
Date: 19.01.2026 MDP