( 1 ) THIS revision petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order of the A. P. Cooperative tribunal, Hyderabad ( the Tribunal for brevity) in I. A. No. 1242 of 2002 in C. T. A. No. 195 of 2002, dated 16-12-2002. By the impugned order, the Tribunal, while suspending the award dated /-9-2002 passed by the second respondent, imposed a condition that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with the first respondent bank. The said order was passed purporting to exercise power under Section 76 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 ( the Act ) read with Rule 11 of the A. P. Co-operative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 ( the Rules for brevity ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner appeared as party- in-person and made submissions for a considerable length of time. His case is as follows:

( 3 ) THE petitioner availed an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- as a loan from the first respondent bank in April, 1999. He paid an amount of Rs. 1,19,000/- till 2002. According to him, in March 2002, the first respondent promised to reschedule the payment of loan and accordingly he paid an amount of rs. 20,000/- in March 2002, Rs. 10,000/- and rs. 5,000/- in April and May 2002 respectively. In spite of this, now it is alleged, the first respondent bank approached the second respondent for an award for recovery of the amount. After receiving notice from the second respondent, the petitioner appeared before the second respondent, who, according to the petitioner, earlier promised to give time for repayment of loan and also asked the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/ -. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the said amount to the first respondent bank which allegedly promised to withdraw their case under sub- section (3) of Section 62 of the Act before the second respondent. Be that as it is, an ex pane award was passed on 7-9-2002 by the second respondent for an amount of Rs. 5,04,538/- in spite of the petitioner making a request for adjournment by telegram dated 5-9-2002. Having come to know that an ex pane award was passed, the petitioner made an application to set aside the same on 10-10-2002. However, the same was not received. Therefore, he filed an appeal under Section 76 of the Act before the Tribunal.

( 4 ) ALONG with the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application being I. A. No. 1242 of 2002 seeking interim suspension of the award dated /-9-2002 passed by the second respondent. By the impugned order, the Tribunal suspended the award subject to the petitioner paying an amount of rs. 2,50,000/ -. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court being W. P. No. 25818 of 2002 and the same was dismissed. The petitioner also alleges that he filed a writ appeal against the same and the same is yet to be numbered.

( 5 ) IN the meanwhile, it appears, the first respondent bank initiated execution proceedings under Rule 52 of the A. P. Cooperative societies Rules, 1964 and a notice was published proposing to sell the property mortgaged to the first respondent. Therefore, he filed the present revision petition. The party-in-person, Sri K. Sambasiva Rao, submits that the second respondent committed an error in not accepting the application to set aside the ex parte award though he has got powers. Secondly, he would contend that when the property is mortgaged, there is adequate security for the first respondent bank to recover the loan amount and, therefore, a conditional order passed by the tribunal is wholly unjustified. According to him, Rule 11 of the Rules, has no application. He also placed reliance on various decisions of the Supreme Court in Kumaraswamy Pillai v. Subramonia Iyer, AIR 1955 SC 152, ganga Dhar v. Shankar Lal, AIR 1958 SC 770 and Murarilal v. Devkaran, AIR 1965 sc 225. These decisions deal with "clog on mortgage" and are relied on by the party-in- person in support of his contention mat when there is a clog on mortgage the mortgagee cannot demand