IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16111 of 2008 Between: M/s. Nagarjuna Note Books, Manufacturing Company Rep. by its Proprietor, Sr Tata Narsimha Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, aged about 59 years, Door No. 12-23-24, Gadiyaramvari Street, Kothapet, Guntur. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Rep by its Chief Manager, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 Smt. Tata Eshwaramma, W/o. Venkateswarlu Maseed Street, Brahmin Street, Mangalgiri, Guntur District. 3 Smt. Tata Rajeshwari, W/o. Narsimha Rao, 12-23-24, Gadiyaramvari Street, Kothapet, Guntur 4 Tata Rajendra Kumar, S/o. Narsimha Rao, 12-23-24, Gadiyaramvari Street, Kothapet, Guntur ...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 appropriate writ more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in not granting stay of all further proceedings in the appeal pending before it against the orders passed in IA No. 909 of 2003 in OA No. 135 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam as illegal, arbitrary and against the spirit of the provisions of the R.D.B.F.I. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P.V.SANJEEVA RAO Counsel for Respondents: SMT.CHINTALAPUDI LAKSHMI KUMARI The Court made the following: Order: (Per R. Subhash Reddy, J) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in not granting stay of further proceedings in O.A.No.135 of 2003, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner is the respondent in O.A.No.135 of 2003. The respondent-creditor, bank, has ﬁled the aforesaid application for recovery of monies due from the petitioner. Although the said O.A. is of the year 2003, the petitioner ﬁled I.A.No.909 of 2008 to summon one Sri P. Ramesh Babu, the then Assistant General Manager, who worked during the period 2003-04, to examine him. The said application is rejected by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by its order dated 26-06-2008. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The only grievance in this writ petition is that the appellate Tribunal has not passed any interim orders in favour of the petitioner pending disposal of the appeal. 4. Even according to the petitioner, the appeal itself was filed on 07-07-2008. In that view of the matter, we do not ﬁnd any abnormal delay in disposing of the appeal or the application ﬁled by the petitioner for grant of interim orders. It is also to be noted that the O.A. is of the year 2003 and the petitioner himself ﬁled the application in I.A.No.909 of 2008 nearly after four years after ﬁling the original application. Hence, we do not ﬁnd any valid ground to interfere at this stage. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. July 25, 2008 GRR/MRR