(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toaggrieved by the orders dt. 16.03.2026 of the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in LA. No. 1187/2026 in S.A. No. 53/2026, the Petitioners beg to present the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition

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 pleased to dispense with filling Certified Copy of the orders dt. 16.03.2026 passed in LA. No. 1187/2026 in S.A. No. 53/2026 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the above Revision Petition and pass

IA NO: 2 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 pleased to suspend the orders dt. 16.03.2026 passed in I.A. No. 1187/2026 in S.A. No. 53/2026 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the above Revision Petition and pass)

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

1. The revision petitioner No.2 is the Creditor-Bank. The respondent partnership firm is principal borrower, availed loan of Rs.4,50,00,000/- in the year 2013 and the loan facility was enhanced to Rs.9,00,00,000/-, which is an MSME Unit.

2. Possession notice dated 24.01.2023, was issued and subsequently, sale notice dated 03.11.2023, was issued fixing the date of auction as 29.11.2023 and the Respondent-Applicant filed S.A.No.557 of 2023, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and the same was not pressed.

3. There was sanction of One Time Settlement (OTS), but respondent failed to comply. When the respondent-applicant could not discharge the dues, the Petitioner-Bank initiated petition vide Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ongole, and took possession of the property on 03.01.2026. Thereafter, questioning the E-auction sale notice dated 09.01.2026, S.A.No.53 of 2026 is moved by the respondent before the DRT, Visakhapatnam.

4. Initially, the stay was granted by DRT which is a conditional order dated 27.01.2026, directing the respondent to pay Rs.1,20,00,000/- within a period of four (04) weeks but the same was not complied with. Thereafter, again in I.A.No.1187 of 2026, the DRT passed orders dated 16.03.2026, without any condition in respect of confirmation of sale. The Petitioner-Creditor Bank, herein filed a counter-affidavit and other material papers. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2026, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed for setting aside the orders and for appropriate directions.

5. The revision petitioner has narrated the details earlier proceedings at the instance of respondent.

                  i. W.P.No.3696/2024 was filed challenging E-auction notice dated. 24.01.2024, interim status quo orders dated 12.02.2024, were passed by this Court subject to deposit of half of the amount due within a period of 4 weeks. The Borrower failed to deposit the same. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.03.2024.

                  ii. W.P.No.3553 of 2024 was filed challenging Section 14 proceedings interim 'status quo' orders dated 19.02.2024 were passed by this Court subject to deposit of half of the amount due within a period of 4 weeks. The Respondent failed to deposit the same. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.03.2024.

                  iii. W.P.No.3556 of 2024 was filed challenging Section 14 proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.02.2024.

                  iv. W.P.No.21929 of 2025 was filed challenging Section 14 proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.08.2025.

                  v. W.P.No.35995 of 2025 was filed challenging Section 14 proceedings and to grant extension of time to pay the OTS approved amount. The Writ Petition was dismissed granting liberty to the Respondent to make representation for extension of time.”

6. There is no denial regarding non-compliance with the earlier directions to deposit the amount, etc., by the Respondent-Debtor.

7. Since the earlier conditional orders were not complied, the subsequent unconditional order found to be unconvincing. Hence, we find that the questioned orders are set aside. However, the DRT, Visakhapatnam is directed to dispose of Interlocutory Application No.1187 of 2026 in S.A.No.53 of 2026, in accordance with law, after considering the contentions of both parties, preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

                  There shall be no order as to costs.

9. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.