IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22251 of 2001 Between: Chitrala Srinivas S/o C.Sadanandam, R/p Plot No. 49, Father Balaiah Nagar, Co-op. Housing Society, Old Alwal, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Bhagyanaga Co-op. Urban Bank Limited (Unde Liquidation) Rep. by its Manager at 4-1-825, J.N.Road, Abiods, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Registrar of Co-operative Societies/Officer on Special Duty, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 3 M/s Srinivas Enterprises, Rep. by its Smt. T.Rajini, H.No.1-2-234, Plot No.23, S.B.H. Colony, Domalaguda, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.M.RAO Counsel for respondent No.1: MS. D.K.AMARAVATHI FOR MR.D.GOVERDHANACHARY Counsel for respondent No.2: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for respondent No.3: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in dismissing the petitioner’s objections ﬁled under Rule 52(13) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short “the Rules”) and ﬁnalizing the sale in favour of a third party as illegal. The dispute pertains to Plot No.3, Survey No.58 (part) of Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring 275.5 square yards. When the said property was proposed to be sold in a public auction for realizing the debt owed by respondent No.3, the petitioner, who claimed to have purchased the said property under registered sale deed dated 09-03-1990 from Smt K.Rukmini Bai, W/o K.Rama Swamy, ﬁled his objections under Rule 52(13) of the Rules. Respondent No.2 having rejected the said objections, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition for the above mentioned relief. At the hearing, Sri A.M.Rao, leaned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submitted that on the same day when his objections were rejected by respondent No.2, the petitioner ﬁled O.S.No.1259 of 2001 for permanent injunction against respondents 1 and 3 herein and that the Civil Court has granted ad interim injunction, which is subsisting as on today. He also submitted that there is a dispute regarding the title over the property, in question, between the petitioner and respondent No.3. The question whether the action of respondent No.2 in seeking to sell the property, in question, for realization of the debt from respondent No.3 is illegal or not depends upon the question of title over the property. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to decide the dispute regarding title in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the petitioner already approached the competent Civil Court by way of a civil suit albeit by claiming relief of injunction, it is appropriate that the petitioner seeks relief of declaration of title as well in the pending suit by seeking amendment of the plaint. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed, without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the above mentioned remedy. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd September, 2008 vrn