THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 10851 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent- Union Bank of India, represented by its Branch Manager, Main Branch, Vijayawada-1, not to dispossess her from the property bearing D. No. 40-20-35 situated at Pragathi Nagar, Benz Circle, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The petitioner claims to have purchased the subject property from one Shaik Fatimunnisa, under agreement of sale dated 06.06.1994, and claims to be continuing in possession thereof. While so, she states that she later came to know that the said Fatimunnisa stood as surety for the loan obtained by her son from the respondent bank and offered the subject property as security for the loan. As the borrower did not repay the loan, the bank has initiated proceedings for recovery of the loan amount, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the process of recovery of the said debt, the respondent bank, without issuing any notice, is trying to dispossess her from the subject property, which was purchased by her under a valid agreement of sale. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the subject property by virtue of agreement of sale dated 06.06.1994 entered into between her and one Fatimunnisa. According to her, since the said Fatimunnisa failed to execute regular sale deed in her favour, she filed a suit in O.S. No.919 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada, seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 06.06.1994 and also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the subject property. The respondent bank is also a party defendant to that suit and the said suit is still pending. Since the petitioner has no title to the subject property as on today, no directions to the respondent bank not to dispossess her from the subject property, can be granted by this Court, in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner can pursue her remedies in the above suit filed by her, which is still pending. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state that the interim order passed on 04.06.2009 in W.P.M.P. No. 13947 of 2009 stands vacated. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 16th November 2011 IBL