IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 15 of 1999 Between: S.Pullaiah, S/o. Ramaiah. Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 S.B.I., Rep By Its Branch Manager. Balanagar Branch, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. Seetharama Electrical Industries, Rep By M.D.-S.Pullaiah. Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 3 G.Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Narayana. Industrial Estate, Sanatnagar, Hyderabad. 4 S.Narasinga Rao, S/o. S.Pullaiah. Industrail Estate, Sanatnagar, Hyderabad. 5 S.Gopal, S/o. Pullaiah. Industrail Estate, Santanagar, Hyderabad. 6 M/s. Jagat Enterprises, S/o. S.Pullaiah. Rep By Its Partner-S.Narasinga Rao. IDA Jeedimetla, Hyderabad. 7 The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Rep By Its Presiding Officer. Bangalore, Karnataka. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in MA.189/98 filed in O.A.1177/96 in not granting stay of sale of scheduled property in O.A.1177/96 and in ordering notice to respondents in MA.189/98 in petitioner filed for setting aside the ex parte order passed in O.A.1177/96 dated 20/12/1996 as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from abuse of process of law and consequently set aside the ex parte order passed in O.A.1177/96 dated 20/12/96 and pass such other or further order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.K.SREEDHAR RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No : 15 of 1999 Oral Order: (per Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not pressing the writ petition and the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed. Recording the said statement, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J Date: 3rd February, 2009 _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J pnb