THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :30287 of 2010 Date:3.12.2010 Between: M. Sambasiva Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Hitech Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd. and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A. Ushi Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Cooperation The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :30287 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside judgment dated 30.3.2010 in O.P. No. 26 of 2005 on the file of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner stood as guarantor for the loan transaction entered into by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with respondent No.1, wherein they have availed loan of Rs.40,000/- on 18.4.2002. As respondent No.2 is able to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards principal amount and Rs.1,567/- towards interest and failed to pay the balance outstanding loan amount, respondent No.1 has approached the Tribunal for recovery of the amount. The petition filed by respondent No.1 was registered as O.P. No.26 of 2005. While respondent Nos. 2 and 3 remained ex-parte, the petitioner has contested the case. After considering the pleadings of the petitioner and the evidence on record, the Tribunal has rejected the plea of the petitioner that he has never executed guarantee to the loan transaction of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and that the said respondents, who are daughter and father respectively, have played fraud on him. The Tribunal has categorically observed that in para-11 of the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner, he made a clear admission that he has stood as guarantor for the loan transaction and that the mere suggestion made by him for the first time to P.W.1 in the course of his cross- examination does not prove the case of the petitioner in the face of such a clear admission. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to raise several issues of fact, I am afraid this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not embark upon these disputed questions of fact. Having carefully considered the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, W.P.M.P. No.38570 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 3rd December, 2010 pnb