IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO.1262 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09.09.2008 in W.P.NO.14566 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 State Bank of India, rep by Branch Manger, Dabirpur Branch, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 State Bank of India, rep by Chairman and Managing Director, Mumbai. ...APPELLANTS AND K. Amarnath, S/o K. Narsing Rao, M/s. Shiv Shakti Poultry and Grape Garden, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: MR.M.NARENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO.1262 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri M.Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India- appellants and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The appellants-State Bank of India ﬁled this appeal, inter alia, aggrieved against the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, while disposing of Writ Petition No.15466 of 2008. Brieﬂy stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent ﬁled the Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking for a Mandamus to declare the action of the appellants herein in not considering his case for one time settlement of the loan account Nos.ATL 42 and 43, as illegal. The case of the appellants was that there exists no such scheme and as and when the oﬀer comes, his case will be considered. Further, in view of the decree obtained, the same has to be kept in view before any such settlement is arrived at. After considering the submissions and the averments made in the respective pleadings, learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition with the following direction. “The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of, giving liberty to petitioner to approach ﬁrst respondent immediately. First respondent thereafter may negotiate with him and settle the matter under OTS. No costs.” The grievance of the appellants is to the eﬀect that having regard to the said speciﬁc directions given, which virtually makes the decree obtained by them as null and void and further, the entire approach in regard to any settlement would be defeated apart from defeating the decree. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in fact, it is only from out of the allegation made in the counter aﬃdavit, it has been stated that as and when the respondent comes with an offer, the same will be taken into consideration. Having considered the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, we deem it ﬁt to dispose of the Writ Appeal, since the controversy is very narrow, which pertains to the mode as to how the parties has to take steps as directed by the learned Single Judge. It is needless to mention that both the parties can settle the matter across the table and give oﬀer and counter oﬀer and make settlement. It is further needless to mention that the appellants are at liberty to proceed with the execution of the decree. Subject to the above, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J) 14th October 2008 RRB