IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 386 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/07/2007 in WP NO: 24398 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Budda Narimani, W/o B.Koteswara Rao, R/o D.No.43-16-4/1, T.S.N.Colony, Visakhapatnam. ... APPELLANT AND 1) The District Central Co.operative Bank, represented by its General Manager, NH.5 Road, Marripalem, Vuda Layout, Visakhapatnam. 2) The Dist.Central Cooperative Bank, represented by its Branch Manager, Kancharapalem Branch, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. 3) The Special Cadre Registrar/Special Officer, Dist.Central Co.operative Bank, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. 4) The Senior Inspector/Sale Officer, Dist.Central Co.operative Bank, Visakhapatnam. 5) Smt.Ganni Padmaja, W/o and Legal Heir of Venkateshwar Rao, D.No.37-10-123, Ayyapa Nagar, Murali Nagar East, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.L.N.RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR.M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 5: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: Oral Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.7.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.22398 of 2002, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner. 2. The land in question had been purchased by the appellant – petitioner, but before the sale was effected in pursuance of a decree passed by a Civil Court, the same had been mortgaged in favour of respondent No.1 and as the mortgage money could not be paid, it was put to auction and upon issuance of auction notice, the appellant – petitioner had approached this Court with a prayer that the auction be stayed as he had lawfully purchased the land in question. 3. Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the relevant record, the learned Single Judge rejected the petition filed by the appellant for the reason that the land in question had already been mortgaged in favour of respondent No.1 – cooperative bank and the sale was effected subsequently and, therefore, it was subject to the right of the creditor – cooperative bank. 4. We have heard the learned advocates and looking to the admitted fact that the property in question had been mortgaged in favour of respondent No.1 by deposit of title deed in August, 1998 and the property had already been attached on 25.5.2001 whereas the sale in pursuance of an ex parte decree was effected on 24.10.2002, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge was not right in rejecting the petition. 5. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal and do not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, it would be open to the appellant to file objection/claim petition under Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 before the concerned authority. If such an application is filed, we are sure that the same shall be decided in accordance with law. 6. Subject to the afore-stated observation, the appeal is dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ April 21, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs