THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1009 OF 2010 DATED:24-11-2011 Between: The Branch Manager, A.P. State Financial corporation, Nellore. … Appellant And A.V. Pramod Kumar and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1009 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) The appellant - Financial Corporation is aggrieved by an order dt.16.6.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.751 of 2005. 2. It appears that a loan was taken by respondent No.7 and by way of security, respondent Nos.1 to 6 mortgaged their property and stood guarantee for return of the loan. When the amounts were not repaid by respondent No.7, the appellant – Financial Corporation took steps to try and recover the loan amount through sale of the mortgaged property. 3. On this, respondent Nos.1 to 6 objected stating that they were strangers to the transaction and that some fraud had been played upon them and the appellant – Financial Corporation could not sell their property to recover the loan amount. Since no favourable response was forthcoming from the appellant – Financial Corporation, respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed a writ petition challenging the action of the appellant – Financial Corporation seeking to sell off the mortgaged property to recover the loan. 4. It appears that during the hearing of the writ petition it came to light, through the loan documents, that the photographs that appeared thereon were not those of respondent Nos.1 to 6. When this fact came to light, the learned Single Judge required the parties to be present in Court to determine whether the persons whose photographs appeared on the loan documents were the guarantors. The learned Single Judge found that the persons whose photographs appeared on the loan documents were completely different from respondent Nos.1 to 6 – writ petitioners and this was not denied by any of the parties before the learned Single Judge. 5. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge held that some fraud had been played upon the appellant – Financial Corporation and that respondent Nos.1 to 6 had been impersonated and they had apparently not stood guarantee for return of the loan or mortgaged their property. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the notification issued by the appellant – Financial Corporation for bringing the house property of respondent Nos.1 to 6 for sale. The learned Single Judge gave liberty to the appellant – Financial Corporation to approach the appropriate forum for taking such action as may be permissible in law. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant – Financial Corporation is now before us. It appears to us that some sort of fraud has been played on the appellant – Financial Corporation and also on respondent Nos.1 to 6. The true facts will emerge only through a trial. In writ jurisdiction, we cannot adjudicate on such facts as are likely to be in dispute, namely, the persons who stood guarantee for recovery of the loan and whether respondent Nos.1 to 6 had in fact mortgaged their property. Consequently, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, but we leave it open to the appellant – Financial Corporation to take such action as may be permissible in law to recover the loan from respondent No.7. 7. Appeal is disposed of in view of the above and the interim application is also disposed of. 8. We make it clear that any observations made by the learned Single Judge or by us will not stand in the way of the appellant – Financial Corporation in taking steps to recover the loan amount. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 24-11-2011 Pnb/bnr