THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4188 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner had obtained loan from the respondent-Bank. An item of immovable property was offered as security by way of mortgage. It is stated that there was some irregularity in repayment of instalments. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent is trying to dispossess him from the premises. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The occasion to dispossess the petitioner from the premises would arise, if only the mortgage is foreclosed, and the property is sold, or if the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, are initiated. Across the Bar, it is stated that no such proceedings have been initiated. The respondent, in fact, states that they never threatened to dispossess the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondent shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the premises offered as mortgage to the respondent, without following the procedure prescribed by law. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25.02.2011. GJ