IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5662 of 2008 Between: Lankapalli Gandhi S/o.Jayaramadasu R/o.Pedamalapalli, Hamlet of Jagannadha Puram Village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District 2 The Circle Inspector of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The station House officer, Pedavegi Police Station, West Godavari District 4 Hari Someswara Rao S/o.Somanadha Sastry R/o.Agraharam, Eluru, West Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.CHANDRAIAH NAIDU for MR.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.4: None appeared. The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In the view I am taking, there is no need to issue notice to respondent No.4. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.392 of 2007 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.5.75 cents of agricultural land comprised in R.S.Nos.94/1 and 93 of Muttanaveedu and Alliveedu Villages of Pedavegi Mandal; that he sought for an interim injunction against the petitioner, which was granted, and the vacate stay petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 07-03-2008 passed by the trial Court. The petitioner further alleged that questioning the said order, he filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) and an application for suspending the order of injunction and that the said application and CMA are pending. He further contended that while the CMA is pending, respondent No.4 filed an application seeking police protection before the trial Court and it was pending as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the CMA and the application for suspension of order of injunction are pending before the appellate Court and the application filed by respondent No.4 for police aid is pending before the trial Court, respondent No.3 has been unduly interfering with the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. He, therefore, sought for a restraint order against respondents 2 and 3 from interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the above-mentioned property. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, I am of the view that respondents 2 and 3 cannot interfere, unless and until an order, granting police aid is passed by the competent Court. On the premise that the application for police aid filed by respondent No.4 was pending, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. It is, therefore, just and necessary to direct respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4, unless the competent Court of Law directs them to act in aid of any order passed in favour of any of the parties. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7353 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17-03-2008 LUR