THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.966 of 2003 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application submitted by him on 28.12.2002 under “One Time Settlement” scheme and not to proceed further in E.P. No.310 of 1998 in O.S.No.97 of 1991 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The petitioner, who is an ex-employee of the respondents-bank, worked as a Manager at Timmapuram Branch of East Godavari District. While he was in service, he availed a loan to a tune of Rs.80,000/- from the respondents-bank for construction of house, but failed to repay the same. To recover the said amount, the respondents-bank filed O.S.No.97 of 1991 and obtained preliminary decree at the first instance and later, obtained final decree. To recover the said amount as per the final decree, E.P.No.310 of 1998 was filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, seeking direction to sell the mortgaged property by bringing the same for sale. At that stage, this writ petition is filed. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he submitted a application on 28.12.2002 to settle his loan under “One Time Settlement” scheme, the respondents have not considered the same and are taking steps to recover the amount in E.P.No.310 of 1998. It is also the case of the petitioner that certain amount was paid by him during the pendency of the suit proceedings. When the suit filed by the respondents-bank is decreed and the same has become final, they are entitled to recover the decretal amount by execution of the decree. Whether the petitioner’s claim can be considered under the “One Time Settlement” scheme or not is a matter to be examined, as per the scheme notified by the respondents-bank and also as per the directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India. So far as the application of the petitioner, dated 28.12.2002 is concerned, no material is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner showing that his claim can be considered under the “One Time Settlement” scheme. In the absence of placing any material in support thereof and when the suit filed for recovery of the very same loan amount was decreed in favour of the respondents-bank, no directions can be given to the respondents-bank to settle the loan of the petitioner under the “One Time Settlement” scheme. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition for grant of directions as prayed for and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that while executing the decree the amount paid by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit proceedings shall be taken into account. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Dated:26.11.2009 dr