IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26340 of 2009 Between: V.Chandra Kumari & Another ..... PETITIONERS AND Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Regional Office, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad & Others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No. 26340 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Petitioners who are guarantors for the loan secured by the principal borrower filed this writ petition questioning the proclamation of sale, dated 22.10.2009 in R.P.No.64 of 2002 in O.A.No.444 of 1996 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to settle the compromise by accepting the balance amount of Rs.45.00 lakhs and to transfer rights in respect of the property mortgaged by late K.Subbarao and the property of respondents 7 and 8 in favour of the petitioners. It is now fairly well settled that this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot create contract between the parties. Further the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in O.A.No.444 of 1996 has become final in which the recovery certificate has been issued for due recovery of the amounts decreed by the Tribunal in the year 2007 and at that stage, the petitioners approached the respondent-Bank for compromising the matter and clearing the entire debt within three months from November, 2009 for Rs.85.00 lakhs out of which, even according to the petitioners, they paid only Rs.40.00 lakhs and committed default in payment of the balance amount. The order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the recovery certificate issued in R.P.No.64 of 2002 has become final. In view of the same, the petitioners, if aggrieved by the issuance of proclamation of sale, can prefer an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) ____________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) DECEMBER 03, 2009 TSR