P. Dhanraj v. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE T. VI NOD KUMAR W RI T PETTI ON No.2 3 9 2 4 of 2 0 1 9 ORDER:

The relief sought for in the writ petition is relating to the inaction of the second respondent in taking necessary action against respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2.

Admittedly, the petitioner had borrowed monies from respondent Nos.3 and 4 under an agreement and has committed default in payment thereof. Therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have taken steps for recovery of the amount due from the petitioner. It is apparent that the petitioner has chosen to make the present complaint only with a view prevent respondent Nos.3 and 4 from recovering the said amount.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner makes an offer to pay Rs.5,000/ - per month to respondent Nos.3 and 4.

4.

This Court cannot take such offer into account having regard to the agreement under which the petitioner had borrowed the monies from respondent Nos.3 and 4.

In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J November 8, 2019/ DSK