IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10825 of 2010 Between: Mohd. Atazazuddin. …Petitioner And Vijaya Bank and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mrs.Voruganti Bharathi Counsel for the Respondents: --- The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10825 of 2010 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1- Bank, in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from flat bearing No.101, of Mohammad Care Residency at H.No.10-5- 64/8/C, of Sriramnagar Colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Smt.Voruganti Bharathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner claimed that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have executed an unregistered “notarised” mortgage deed in his favour on receiving a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 29-01-2007 from him. He alleged that on 29-04-2010, the officials of respondent No.1- Bank came to his flat and sought to forcibly evict him. The petitioner further averred that it is only at that time that he was aware of the fact that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have mortgaged the flat in question to respondent No.1- Bank for obtaining a loan and that they have suppressed this information while executing mortgage deed in favour of the petitioner. In my opinion, if the petitioner has acquired any rights, which prima facie he did not, as he did not held registered mortgage deed, he has to work out his remedies available to him in common law. Even on the petitioner’s own showing, respondent No.1- Bank has been seeking to enforce its right under a validly executed mortgage deed by the original owners of the property. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek the aid of this Court to interdict respondent No.1- Bank from exercising its legal right for recovery of the loan. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, respondent No.1- Bank shall not dispossess the petitioner forcibly from the flat in question without following due process of law. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.13844 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is also dismissed. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 30th April, 2010 ES