HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.12484 of 2011 ORDER: Earlier the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.995 of 2005 questioning the order of the Sale Officer, A.P. Co-operative Housing Societies Federation Limited, Vijayawada, made in Claim Petition No.1 of 2004, dated 09-11-2004. 2. The father of the petitioners, Tungala Venkata Basava Subrahmanyeswara Rao, obtained a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the 3rd respondent-Society by mortgaging the house property. On his default to repay, an award was passed. Thereupon E.P.No.516 of 2000-2001 was filed for executing the award. The petitioners approached the executing Court by filing a claim petition claiming themselves as shareholders in the property. The said claim petition was rejected. Thereafter, they filed a suit for partition O.S.No.2 of 2004 with a view to frustrate the execution petition. When the property was sought to be sold, they approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition. This Court disposed of that writ petition by order dated 19-08-2010, inter alia, in the following terms: “It is not in dispute that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.2 of 2004, which appears to have been filed only after the Award is passed. The loan was obtained by mortgaging the property, and at no point of time, the petitioners have raised any objection for such mortgage, but when the loan amount was not repaid, and the Society proceeded with recovery after obtaining Award, this application is filed by the petitioners, which itself shows that it is a collusive application, filed at the instance of the loanee, so as to curtail the process of sale to recover the amount covered by E.P.No.516/2000-2001. In any event, for the reasons stated by the Sale Officer/Recovery Officer, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order, in this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. However, if the loan amount is not repaid, it is open for the petitioners to repay the same, so as to avoid sale of property, in which, petitioners are claiming share. In that view of the matter, no steps shall be taken for a period of eight weeks from today, and in the meanwhile, it is open for the petitioners to approach the authority and repay the amount due to the 3rd respondent-Society. If the amount is not paid within the aforesaid time, it is open for the 3rd respondent- Society to take appropriate steps for recovery of amount in accordance with law.” 3. In spite of the fact that this Court gave an opportunity to the petitioners to repay the amount by deferring the sale, the petitioners did not think it fit to avail the opportunity. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition again seeking to interdict the E.P. proceedings raising a new plea. 4. According to them, they made a representation on 01-03-2011 to the respondents for one time settlement. The respondents are not inclined to consider the said representation, the petitioners, therefore, complain that without considering their representation, the respondents are not expected to proceed with the execution proceedings. 5. The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that the petitioners have been creating hurdles in the execution proceedings. They did not even avail the opportunity given by this Court in W.P.No.995 of 2010, dated 19-08-2010. There is no obligation on the part of the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners nor are they obliged for one time settlement as proposed by the petitioners. Clearly the petitioners are abusing the process of law in order to frustrate the recovery of the loan amount. Therefore, they are not entitled for any relief much less a discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the conduct of the petitioners deserves awarding of exemplary costs. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), which the petitioners shall deposit in favour of the Member Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authorities, Hyderabad, within a period of two weeks from today. Note:- After dictating the order, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners will pay the entire E.P. amount within a period of two days from today i.e. on or before 25-06-2011 and prays for adjourning the matter. Hence, post on 27-06-2011. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 23 -06-2011 Kvr