THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28618 of 2010 Date: 29.12.2010 Between: Smt. N.R. Indira ..... Petitioner AND The Secretary, Cooperative Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 03.09.2010 in I.A.No.258 of 2010 in C.T.A.S.R.No.1127 of 2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). I have heard Sri P. Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Sreenivasa Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner has borrowed money from respondent No.3. As she failed to repay the same, respondent No.2 has issued the certificate under Section 71 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, for recovery of the debt. In execution of the said certificate, respondent No.3 has filed E.P.No.1170/PL-127/08. On consideration of the said application of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has passed the order dated 06.03.2010 attaching the petitioner’s salary to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month. Questioning the said order of attachment, the petitioner filed C.T.A.S.R.No.1127 of 2010 before the Tribunal. In the said appeal the petitioner also filed I.A.No.258 of 2010 for raising the attachment. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal has dismissed the said I.A., by its order dated 03.09.2010. Assailing this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In para 8 of the order impugned in this writ petition, the Tribunal observed that the petitioner was due in a sum of Rs.1,02,994/- as on 01.06.2010 and that the sums of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.40,000/- were paid subsequently on 22.06.2010 and 23.06.2010 respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that for the subsequent months, Rs.5,000/- per month was recovered from the petitioner’s salary. A perusal of the order impugned shows that detailed reasons have been given for rejection of the petitioner’s application. Moreover, raising of attachment under an interlocutory order pending the appeal, maintainability of which is seriously disputed by respondent No.3, will have the affect of allowing the appeal itself. In the light of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error in declining the relief claimed by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36509 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th December, 2010 GHN