THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT APPEAL No.1568 of 2001 ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy): The appellants, who are third parties to the writ petition, filed this writ appeal aggrieved by the observation made by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 20.02.2001 passed in W.P.No.7347 of 1992, which was disposed of along with W.P.No.11713 of 1996, that the first respondent therein is entitled to proceed against the other three persons for recovery of the balance amount due under the surcharge order. The surcharge order was passed on 09.11.1985 under Section 60(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,20,500/- with interest, out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.80,500/- was directed to be recovered from Sri Sanyasi Naidu, the father of the writ petitioners, and three others and balance amount was directed to be recovered from M.Sri Sankar, Co-operative Sub Registrar, and the said order has become final. The legal representatives of the said Sanyasi Rao filed W.P.No.7347 of 1992 against the notice issued by the first respondent therein demanding an amount of Rs.2,02,256/-, contending that as per the surcharge order dated 09.11.1985, the father of the petitioners is liable to pay an amount of Rs.20,200/-only, and therefore, they cannot be held liable for the entire amount due under the surcharge order. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 20.02.2001, to put a quietus to the litigation and to meet the ends of justice, directed the writ petitioners to pay the amount of Rs.20,200/- with interest thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and the first respondent was directed to accept the same to his full satisfaction with regard to the liability of late Sanyasi Rao, the father of the petitioners, and close the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. While passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge made an observation that the first respondent is entitled to proceed against the other three persons for recovery of the remaining balance amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be presumed that granting liberty to the first respondent will foreclose the defence available to the writ appellants including the limitation for recovery of the remaining surcharge amount due. Since the official respondents have not filed appeal aggrieved by the order passed in the writ petition and the same has become final insofar as the writ petitioners are concerned, the order impugned in this appeal cannot be interfered with, except clarifying as referred to above. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J _____________________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 11.02.2011 va