IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22999 of 2004 Between: Sri Lakshmi Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank, Nacharam, Ranga Reddy District, rep.by its official Liquidator, Sri B.Bajranganath, S/o.Late B.Lakshmipathi. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, Marketing, Warangal. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, writ or writs more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in keeping the documents Nos.859/95, 860/95, 861/95, 989/95, dated 26-08-1995 in the office of the 2nd respondent which is belongs to guarantor Mr.Nalla Malla Reddy of the loanee Smt. P.Aruna of the petitioner Bank as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, and unlawful and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to return the documents Nos.859/95, 860/95, 861/95, 989/95, dt.26-08-1995 belongs to Mr.Nalla Malla Reddy. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRCH.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court at the admission stage made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to return the documents bearing No.859 to 861 and 989/1995, dated 26.08.1995. The documents are said to be sale deeds belonging to a guarantor, by name Nalla Malla Reddy, offered as security for the loan obtained by Smt.P.Aruna, from the petitioner bank. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, as well as in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, several contentions are urged touching on the merits of the matter. The fact remains that the documents are said to be with the second respondent and the circumstances under which they have passed on to him are not before this Court. Further, it is purely a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. This Court cannot undertake adjudication of the same. A suit is said to be already pending between the respondents on one hand and the petitioner on the other. The petitioner can certainly canvass its rights in relation to the said documents also in the pending suit. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to canvass its rights in the pending suit, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 14th December, 2004 Note: Issue copy in three days. (B/o) pan To 1 The Director of Marketing, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, Marketing, Warangal. 3 Two C.Cs to the Govt.Pleader for Agriculture, High Court buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 4 Two CD copies