IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.598 of 2010 Between: Smt.Ballam Bhagya Lakshmi ..... Petitioner AND 1.Union Bank of India, rep. by its Manager and Authorized Officer, Branch Office at Opp. DGP Office, Public Gardens Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Sreenivasa Sarma Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr.P.A.V.Bala Prasad Counsel for Respondent No.2: --- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in interfering with her rights with regard to residential house bearing No.2-5-40/2/A (Survey No.135) admeasuring 155 square yards situated at Macha Bolarum, Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri S.Sreenivasa Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.A.V.Bala Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, she is neither borrower nor guarantor in respect of the loan obtained by respondent No.2 from respondent No.1 and therefore, respondent No.1 is not justified in interfering with her possession of the above-mentioned property. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1-Bank, it is inter alia stated that respondent No.2 obtained credit facilities from it; that one S.B.Ramesh, S/o.Bhikam Singh stood as guarantor therefor and mortgaged House No.5-40/2 admeasuring 359.50 square yards in Survey No.135 at Kummara Basti, Macha Bolarum, Malkajgiri; that the loan obtained by respondent No.2 was classified as NPA as per the RBI guidelines; that respondent No.1 filed O.A.No.96 of 2006 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short ‘the DRT’) for recovery of a sum of Rs.27,96,993/- against respondent No.2 and the guarantor, apart from initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the said two persons; that in pursuance of the proceedings under the Act, respondent No.1 issued demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act; that as no objections were received from the guarantor or borrower, respondent No.1 issued notice, dated 18-05-2005, requesting the guarantor to handover/surrender the possession of the asset; that questioning the said notice, the guarantor filed S.A.No.117 of 2005 on the file of the DRT, Hyderabad; that the same was dismissed on 03-12-2008; that after dismissal of the said proceedings, respondent No.1 has taken possession of the property in question on 02-02- 2009; that questioning the same, the guarantor filed WP.No.2073 of 2009 wherein this Court passed an interim order directing the guarantor to deposit an amount of Rs.8 lakhs; that the guarantor deposited Rs.6 lakhs and failed to deposit the balance sum of Rs.2 lakhs; that in view of the default committed by the guarantor in clearing the dues, the said property was brought to auction, notice was issued in respect thereof, questioning which the guarantor filed S.A.No.9 of 2010 before the DRT and that as the Tribunal has granted an interim order, said proceedings are pending before the DRT. The above facts reveal that the property in question is subject matter of a mortgage and proceedings pending before the DRT. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on the rights of the parties. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to participate in the proceedings viz., SA.No.9 of 2010, pending before the DRT, or initiate any other independent proceedings as permissible in law. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 20-01-2010, is vacated and WPMP.No.739 of 2010 and WVMP.No.532 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 12th March, 2010 lur