IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21442 of 2003 Between: M/S ELECTRONIC INDIA, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR V.MAHDAVA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO. 55 YRS, FLAT NO.6, MARUTHI APARTMENTS, S.P.NAGAR, MOULA ALI, HYDERABAD. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 THE PRUDENTIAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., SECUNDERABAD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2 DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER HYDERABAD(URBAN) HYDERABAD DISTRICT. 3 THE A.P.COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT HYDERABAD REP. BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Demand Notice of the 2nd respondent herein dated 3-9-2003 in E.P.No.158/03/PCB, purusanct to the expart decree dated 2-5-2003 in O.P.No.1304/2000, on the file of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to drop further action in the matter and pass such other or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.21442 2003 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the demand notice dated.03-09-2003 issued under Rule.52(11)(b) and (c) of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules,1964 in E.P.No.158/03/PCB on the file of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, as arbitrary and illegal. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that O.P.No.1304 of 2000 filed by the 1st respondent herein was decreed ex parte on 02-05- 2003 and the application filed by the petitioner being I.A.No.101 of 2003 to set aside the ex parte decree is still pending and therefore the impugned demand notice is illegal and unwarranted. This Court while directing rule nisi by order dated.01.10.2003 in WPMP No.26770 of 2003 granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned demand notice subject to the payment of petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with the 1st respondent within a period of four(4) weeks. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has complied with the said direction of this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s application( I.A.No.101 of 2003) for setting aside the ex parte decree passed by the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.P.No.1304 of 2000 is still pending, I am not inclined to express any opinion on merits. Instead, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent-A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad to consider I.A.No.101 of 2003 filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Till such time the mortgaged property shall not be sold. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 4th December,2008 *TSNR