THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 21549 of 2011 ORDER: (Per NVR,J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent- Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, to transmit the original records in O.S. No. 300 of 1986 which was decreed by the Principal Sub Judge, Ranga Reddy District (now known as Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District), to the 1st respondent- Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner along with others claims to have purchased open piece of land admeasuring 787 square yards in Sy. Nos. 53 and 59 bearing H.No.7-88, Plot No.18, Bagh-E-Ameri Village, Kukatpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from Mrs. G. Anuradha, for valuable consideration, under registered sale deed No.1371 of 1985 dated 23.02.1985. After purchase, the property was mutated in their names and they, having obtained necessary permissions, constructed a house in the said land and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof, without any interruption from any quarter. While so, when a notice for sale of the subject property was got published in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily newspaper on 28.03.2008, they came to know that the 3rd respondent bank has filed O.S. No. 300 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for recovery of money, against M/s. East Coast Graphite Company Limited, Hyderabad, and others, and claimed that the subject property was mortgaged by their vendor Mrs. G. Anuradha, towards security for the loan. The said suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed on 22.07.1994. Thereafter, for issuance of recovery certificate, the 3rd respondent bank has filed O.A. No. 174 of 1999 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, and the same was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, and renumbered as O.A. No. 834 of 2002. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, has issued recovery certificate and then the matter was made over to Recovery Officer, DRT, Visakhapatnam, for recovery proceedings and numbered as R.P. No. 162 of 2003. Having come to know all this, the petitioner and other purchasers of the subject property have lodged Claim Petition No. 34 of 2008 before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Visakhapatnam, on 30.05.2008, and the same was dismissed on 16.11.2009. Questioning the same, they preferred an appeal and the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, passed orders on 30.12.2010, granting interim stay of all further proceedings against the subject property, subject to the condition that the appellants therein should deposit on or before 20.01.2011 with the 3rd respondent bank, 25% of Rs.1,20,34,066=00 being the amount drawn in Recovery Certificate of R.P.No.162 of 2003. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal in AIR. No.255 of 2011 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, and the same is pending. While so, the petitioner states that the record pertaining to O.S. No. 300 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Ranga Reddy District, which is lying in the custody of the 2nd respondent, comprises original title deeds and other documents relating to the subject property, and therefore the same needs to be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, where the recovery proceedings in respect of the subject property are pending. Though he submitted representations to the 1st and 2nd respondents, requesting to take steps for transmission of the record, no action has still been taken and on the other hand, it is reliably learnt that the 2nd respondent is taking steps to destroy the record. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions to the 2nd respondent for transmission of the said record to the 1st respondent. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. Though the petitioner claims to have submitted representation to the 1st respondent, seeking to call for the record in O.S. No. 300 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Ranga Reddy District, from the 2nd respondent, and filed copy of such representation dated 20.06.2011 as material paper to the writ petition, it is not known whether such representation was in fact submitted to the 1st respondent, as no acknowledgment of receipt of such representation by the office of the 1st respondent is available. In view of the above and having regard to the fact that the record in O.S No. 300 of 1986 comprises original title deeds and documents pertaining to the subject property in respect of which recovery proceedings are taken up, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as under: The petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the 1st respondent seeking to call for the record in O.S. No. 300 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Ranga Reddy District, from the 2nd respondent. If such an application is filed, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and take appropriate action for calling for the said record. Till such time, the interim orders passed by this Court on 01.08.2011, directing the 2nd respondent not to destroy the record, shall be continued. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA ______________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD 21st November, 2011 IBL