THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 25183 OF 2002 O R D E R: The petitioner stood as a surety for the repayment of loan raised by the 3rd respondent from the 1st respondent. Since the loan instalments were not repaid, the 1st respondent initiated steps for recovery and the primary assets were brought to sale. Since the entire amount was not recovered, the 1st respondent issued advertisement, dated 7.12.2002, proposing to sell the property owned by the petitioner and offered as security. The same is challenged in this writ petition, on several grounds. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating that primary assets i.e. the mill, was sold, by issuing an advertisement dated 25.10.2001, and since the balance of the entire loan amount was not recovered, the property of the petitioner is sought to be proceeded. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. The writ petition was listed for hearing, way back on 20.12.2002. It was admitted on 9.4.2003, and all through, there was no stay of the further proceedings, in pursuance of the advertisement. Since there was no impediment for the respondents from proceeding with the sale, it was always open to them to sell the property. If the property was sold in pursuance of the advertisement, the petitioner had to work out his remedies, in different set of proceedings. On the other hand, if the property is not sold, a fresh notification is to be issued. Further, across the bar, it is stated that the loan amount itself was settled. Either way, nothing remains to be decided in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 20th November 2008 PAN