IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7868 of 2008 Between: 1 Thakur Shambhu Dayal Singh S/o. Gangaram Singh, R/o. H.No. 7-2-58, Rajputwada , Hanumkonda,Warangal. 2 Smt. Thakur Bhagyavathi Devi W/o. Late Ganga Ram Singh, R/o. H.No. 7-2-58, Rajputwada , Hanumkonda,Warangal. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.P. State Financial Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Chiraj Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 The Senior Branch Manager, A.P. State Financial Corporation, Balasamudram, Near Library, Hanumkonda, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.V.VENU FOR MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.DURGA REDDY THIMMAYYAGIRI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside sale notice, dated 02.12.2007 issued by respondent No.1 Corporation. Heard Sri M.V.Venu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T.Durga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. This writ petition is third in succession filed by petitioner No.1 who was unsuccessful in his previous two attempts to stall the sale proceedings. It is not in dispute that for purchasing a unit sold by the respondents in an auction, petitioner No.1 was sanctioned a loan of Rs.6,52,000/-, which included Working Capital of Rs.3,00,000/-. He claims that he has paid Rs.9,00,000/- towards discharge of the said loan amount, but admits that there is still outstanding loan amount. He approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.17001 of 2000 questioning sale notice, dated 30.08.2000 and he has also filed O.S.No.235 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. He was unsuccessful in both the said cases. When another sale notice was issued on 20.09.2007, he filed Writ Petition No.21008 of 2007 and the same was dismissed as infructuous in view of latter sale notice issued by the respondents on 02.12.2007. The present writ petition is filed questioning the said sale notice. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the time of handing over the site with the plant, the respondents failed to ensure that the entire machinery is included within the boundary of the property sold to petitioner No.1 and that as a result of the boundary dispute with the neighbours, he was disabled from running the plant and discharging the loan amount. He, therefore, submitted that due to the reasons solely attributable to the respondents, the industry purchased by petitioner No.1 could not be run and the loan could not be repaid and, therefore, there is no justification for the respondents to sell the property on the ground of nonpayment of arrears. He also submitted that the application for O.T.S. is still pending and that even before disposal of the same, it is not proper for the respondents to sell the property. The question whether there was a boundary dispute or not cannot be gone into in this writ petition, since such dispute, which involves appreciation of facts and evidence, can be adjudicated only by a civil Court. If the petitioners suffered any damage on account of failure of the respondents to handover the site with clear boundaries, the same cannot be a ground for them to withhold repayment of the loan amount. In my considered view, the petitioners’ liability to discharge the outstanding loan amount is independent of the dispute, if any, with the respondents on the latter’s failure to handover the site with clear boundaries. If petitioners suffered any loss on account of the same, they are not precluded from approaching the Court of competent jurisdiction claiming damages. But on this ground, they cannot be permitted to withhold the loan amount and the respondents cannot be prevented from realizing the same by exercising the powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the application for O.T.S. is pending, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the same if it is already filed and take a decision thereon before the unit is sold in pursuance of the impugned notice. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.10352 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th APRIL, 2008 kvni