THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.1688 of 2009 Date: 19.10.2009 Between Bollu Venkata Krishna Rao ….. Petitioner and The Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari at Kakinada and others …. Respondents. ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy): By means of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a mandamus to declare the notices dated 05.11.2006 and 09.03.2007 issued by the second respondent Bank under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’), and the consequential proceedings of the first respondent in L.Dis.C1(M)803/2008, dated .11.2008 in so far as the petitioner’s property, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner, who is claiming to be the purchaser of 29.77 square yards out of 89.33 square yards of land situated at D.No.2-17-3, Madhav Nagar (Venkatnagar), Kakinada under registered sale deed dated 04.12.2003 from one Smt.K.Surya Prakasha Ratnam, entered into an agreement with M/s.Aditya Constructions, represented by the fourth respondent, on 04.12.2003, for construction of flat. While so, the second respondent Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 05.11.2006 alleging that respondents 4 and 5 availed loan from it by mortgaging the above said land to an extent of 89.33 square yards, and failed to repay the same. Subsequently, another notification under Section 13(4) of the Act dated 09.03.2007 was issued inviting tenders from the public, who intend to purchase the said property. On coming to know about the issuance of the said notices, the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the second respondent on 20.04.2007, for which, the second respondent sent a reply stating that they are going to sell the said property. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.S.No.591 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada against respondents 2, 4 and 5 for permanent injunction. Later, he got the suit amended through I.A.No.1297 of 2008 for declaration, if any. Pending the suit, though he obtained status quo order, later the same was vacated. Now, it is stated that a C.M.A has been filed before the lower appellate Court and the same is pending. Since the petitioner has already instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration and failed to obtain necessary orders, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. Further, the impugned notices issued by the second respondent if are not binding on the petitioner since he being a third party to the proceedings, he can always file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and seek appropriate orders. In view of the pendency of the suit, since disputed questions of facts with regard to the rights of the parties are to be adjudicated in the main suit, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, and status quo granted by this Court on 03.02.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.2134 of 2009 shall be maintained for a period of two weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. A.GOPAL REDDY, J SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 19.10.2009 va