THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 15233 of 2003 Dated: 11.11.2010 Between: Smt. Sandhya Rani, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND State Bank of India, Rep., by its Branch Manager, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 15233 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the distraint order dated 17.07.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent invoking the provisions of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short ‘the Act’) is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.3,90,000/- from the 1st respondent-Bank on cash and credit facility. When the 1st respondent-Bank got issued legal notice dated 30.01.2002 for repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner sought time for repayment. Alleging that the petitioner failed to repay the amount due, the 1st respondent-Bank filed O.S.No.683 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, L.B.Nagar for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,09,046/- together with interest. The petitioner herein filed his written statement contesting the suit claim. While the suit is pending, the impugned distraint order has been issued by the 2nd respondent invoking the provisions of the Act and calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount due to the 1st respondent-Bank within one week failing which the immovable property would brought to sale. The said action of the 2nd respondent is challenged in this writ petition primarily on the ground that the impugned distraint order is not preceded by any demand notice. It is also contended that since O.S.No.683 of 2002 is pending before the competent Court of law, it is not open to the respondents to invoke the powers under the Act. This Court, while issuing rule nisi by order dated 25.07.2003 granted interim suspension of the impugned distraint order. Despite notice, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Having regard to the fact that the specific plea of the petitioner that there was no demand notice and moreover a civil suit is pending stood un-rebutted, the impugned distraint order is illegal and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned notice is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 11.11.2010 KLP