The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.7378 of 2010 Dated 1st April, 2010 Between: Mrs.Nasreen Fatima …Petitioner And 1.Canara Bank and another. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mrs.Voruganti Bharathi Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr.Deepak Bhattarjee. Counsel for Respondent No.2: ---- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1- Bank, in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from flat bearing No.202 of Mohammad Care Residency at H.No.10-5-64/8/C, of Sriramnagar Colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Smt.Voruganti Bharathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner claimed that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have executed an unregistered “notarised” mortgage deed in her favour on receiving a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 30-03-2007 from her. She alleged that on 27-03-2010, the officials of respondent No.1- Bank came to her flat and sought to forcibly evict her. The petitioner further averred that it is only at that time that she was aware of the fact that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have mortgaged the flat in question to respondent No.1- Bank for obtaining a loan and that they have suppressed this information while executing mortgage deed in her favour. In my opinion, if the petitioner has acquired any rights, which prima facie she does not, as she does not hold registered mortgage deed, she has to work out her remedies available in common law. Even on the petitioner’s own showing, respondent No.1- Bank has been seeking to enforce its right under a validly executed mortgage deed by the original owners of the property. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek the aid of this Court to interdict respondent No.1- Bank from exercising its legal right for recovery of the loan. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, respondent No.1- Bank shall not dispossess the petitioner forcibly from the flat in question without following the due process of law. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.9515 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 1st April, 2010 lur