O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 19.03.2009 in E.A. No. 22 of 2009 in E.P. No. 1 of 2009 in Case No.472/2001-02 passed by the District Judge/Chairman, A.P. Co- operative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner states that the 4th respondent had taken loan of Rs.20,000/- from Bobbili Co-operative Bank Limited in the year 1999 and that himself and another stood as sureties for the same. Later the said Bank merged with the 1st respondent-Visakhapatnam Co- operative Bank Limited. As the 4th respondent committed default in re-payment of the loan amount, the 1st respondent initiated recovery proceedings, and after obtaining decree, filed an application in E.A. No. 22 of 2009 in E.P. No. 1 of 2009 in Case No. 472/2001-02 before the 3rd respondent seeking attachment of the retirement benefits of the petitioner. Now it is the grievance of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent without issuing any notice and without affording opportunity of being heard, passed the impugned order dated 19.03.2009, attaching a sum of Rs.81,689/- from his retirement benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions of Order XXI Rule 22 CPC, it is obligatory on the part of the 3rd respondent to issue notice to the individual before passing an order in execution petitions filed after two years from the date of the decree. He further submitted that the Registrar passed the decree on 28.03.2001 under Section 71 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 while the present application is filed in the year 2009, and since the present application has been filed long after expiry of two years from the date of decree, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent ordering attachment of his retrial benefits, without issuing any notice, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Since it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order of attachment has been passed without any notice to him, his remedy is to approach the 3rd respondent and file application as provided under Order XXI Rule 23 C.P.C. by putting forth his objections, which the Tribunal would consider, but since the petitioner approached this Court without availing the said remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable, and the same is dismissed. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to file appropriate application before the District Judge/Chairman, A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, as available to him under law. No costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J 26.06.2009 bcj