THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12854 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent – Cooperative Sub-Registrar/Recovery Officer, Nuzvid Mandal Cooperative Building Society Limited, Guntur Town and District, in conducting sale on 18.01.2003 with regard to house property bearing D.No.7/12, Kothapet, Gangadharam Street, Nuzvid, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. Fourth respondent, who is the father of the petitioner, obtained housing loan from the second respondent. As he failed to repay the loan amount, steps were taken by the second respondent – Secretary, Nuzvid Mandal Cooperative Building Society Limited, Nuzvid, Krishna District, to recover the same and accordingly, he has issued a Certificate under Section 71(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, to recover an amount of Rs.1,42,698/-. To enforce that Certificate, the respondents have taken steps as contemplated under Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, and the house property in question was attached and put to auction on 18.01.2003. It is the case of the petitioner that the said house property has fallen to his share in the family partition between him and the fourth respondent. In this writ petition, initially, in WPMP.No.15979 of 2003, this Court by order, dated 02.07.2003, granted stay of confirmation of sale conducted in E.P.No.2/97-98. When WVMP.No.2637 of 2003 was filed by the second respondent seeking to vacate the said order passed in WPMP.No.15979 of 2003, this Court by order, dated 16.03.2004, ordered continuation of the said interim order on condition of the writ petitioner depositing Rs.75,000/- within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In the said order, this Court also made it clear that if the writ petitioner fails to deposit the said amount, it is open to the respondents to take steps pursuant to the auction held on 18.01.2003. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that when the petitioner has not complied with the condition of his depositing Rs.75,000/- as ordered by this Court in order, dated 16.03.2004, passed in WPMP.No.15979 of 2003, further steps were taken and the auction was confirmed in favour of the third party purchaser. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no instructions from his client thereafter. WPMP.No.20234 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner for impleadment of auction purchaser but the same was dismissed by this Court vide its order, dated 23.08.2010. As it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the auction was confirmed in favour of the third party purchaser, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted in the absence of the auction purchaser as a party to the writ petition. In that view of the matter, as the auction purchaser is not a party to the writ petition and as it is reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no instructions from his client to argue further, no relief can be granted as prayed for. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th MARCH, 2011. kvni