PSR, J. Crl.P.No. 2730 of 2009 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri M. Vijaya Kumar Goud, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. It is a case, where the petitioner, owner of the house sold the same to the complainant, through her GPA Holder, in spite of the house being under mortgage. According to the petitioner, she informed about the mortgage being there; whereas, according to the complainant, it is incorrect. Obviously, it must be incorrect or else the complainant would not have purchased the house. In such view of the matter, it is not a fit case for extending the interim stay of arrest of the petitioner. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would clear-off the bank’s loan within a week’s time, the interim stay of arrest of the petitioner is extended for a period of ten days from today. 3. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:04—11—2009. *BVS