THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.No.21838 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Lingala Aruna Devi W/o. L. Hanumantha Rao Goud, R/o. H.No.16-11-16/412, Sripuram Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad. PETITIONER And Bank of Baroda, Rep. By its Senior Manager, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad. RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D. Kondanda Rama Murthy Counsel for the respondent: N.A. The Court made the following – ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This writ petition is filed complaining arbitrary action of the respondent in interfering with the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not a borrower nor availed any loan from the respondent-Bank, and therefore the Bank cannot issue possession notice dated 28.08.2009 to her. If that be the case, the remedy for the petitioner is to approach the civil Court by filing a suit against the respondent-Bank. Since the alleged interference is not under any lawful orders passed under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconciliation of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, there is no bar for the civil Court in entertaining the suit by restraining the respondent-Bank from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. In view of the same, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) __________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) 3rd November, 2009 Js.