IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.13037 of 2009 Between: Mahesh Sing. … Petitioner And: The Commissioner of Police, Twin Cities, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi. Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Home for R.1 and R.2. None for R.3 and R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- The petitioner filed this Writ Petition, feeling aggrieved by the undue inteference of respondent No.2 in the civil disputes between him and respondent No.3. The petitioner pleaded that in respect of the property bearing Municipal No.14-10-760 to 763, admeasuring 190 Sq. yards, Lower Dhoolpet, Jumerat Bazar, Hyderabad, there is a dispute between him and respondent No.3; that the petitioner filed O.S.No.6197 of 2006 on the file of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction against respondent No.3; and that as the latter remained exparte, the said suit was decreed in his favour by judgment and decree dated 14-2-2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is regularly summoning him and the women folk in his house by insisting on him to compromise the dispute with respondent No.3. He cited an instance where three constables visited his house on 27-6-2009 and threatened him. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri K.Chitti Babu, Inspector of Police, Mangalhat Police Station, he made a blanket denial of all the allegations concerning the alleged interference and sending three constables to the petitioner’s house on 27-6-2009. He also stated that he never summoned the petitioner and his family members to the Police Station and harassed them to compromise with respondent No.3. He pleaded that there is no complaint against the petitioner or respondent No.3 in the Mangalhat Police Station. The above statements of respondent No.2 are placed on record and the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 not to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 in future. Liberty is given to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in the event respondent No.2 causes such interference in future. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:13 -7-2009 MNR