THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.22187 of 2010 ORDER: (Per BPR,J) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and B.S.Prasad learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, and at their request the main writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. The petitioner has sought for a Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia for a Mandamus assailing the correctness of the impugned notice issued by the respondent No.1 bank purportedly under Rule (6) of the Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 dated 6-8-2010 and also a notice for delivery of possession issued under Section 13 (4) and 12 of SARFAESI Act r/w Rule 8 (1) and (2) of Security Interest Enforcement Rules 2002 dated 6-8-2010. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is to the effect that she is no way concerned with the liability and all the papers on which the respondent bank is relying and filed are obtained by the contesting respondents 2 to 4 by forgery and fraud and it is not her signature. Therefore, neither the petitioner has signed such papers nor obtained the loan from the respondent No.1 bank. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed a substantive appeal in O.A.No.461 of 2000, on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, which is added as respondent No.5 as per orders by this Court today. Further, the petitioner has also stated that she has taken steps under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the disputed documents for expert opinion, since it is her case that those documents are forgery. Therefore, as long as such questions which go to the very root of the case are not decided finally, it is not open for the respondent No.1 to make any exercise or proceed against the properties of the petitioner. Thus, the twin impugned notices of even date dated 6-8- 2010 accordingly be set at naught. Hence the writ petition. Having heard the counsel and on perusal of the material, it is quite amply clear and without any denial the fact remains that the main appeal in O.A.241 of 2000 on the very same lines as alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition making serious allegations of forgery and fraud is pending on the file of the 5th respondent herein and the petitioner has already taken certain steps in support of her case to substantiate her plea of fraud and forgery. Therefore, it is not necessary to delve into the merits of the case since all such questions have to be gone into after a regular trial by providing due opportunities to both sides. However, as long as such question is decided as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, necessarily the action on the part of the respondent No.1 is not justifiable. In the circumstances, respondent No.5-Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad is directed to dispose of the main O.A.241 of 2000 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after holding a regular enquiry by giving due opportunities of hearing to both sides. It is made clear that till the disposal of the main appeal, the respondent No.1 is directed not to take any steps independently or in pursuance of the aforesaid twin impugned notices dated 6-8-2010 either against person or property. It is also made clear that further steps taken by the respondent No.1 will be subject to the ultimate result in the aforesaid O.A.241 of 2000. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms as stated above. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) _________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA,J) Date:06th September, 2010 Grk Note: Operative portion by wire. grk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.22187 of 2010 Dated: 06th September 2010